Mickey Cruickshank

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action and awarding costs, which was premised on their failure to pay previously ordered costs and to either appoint counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person after their lawyer withdrew.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the undisputed failure of the appellants to pay the prior costs award of $4,095.

No costs were awarded for the appeal itself.

The plaintiffs, two senior citizens, were detained and arrested at the Canada-U.S. border by the CBSA and subsequently the Niagara Police based on outdated CPIC information indicating they had breached undertakings.

The undertakings had been vacated weeks earlier, but the RCMP failed to update the CPIC system.

The court found that the RCMP breached its duty of care by failing to promptly remove the inaccurate information, and that the CBSA and Niagara Police breached their standard of care by failing to verify the CPIC information before arresting the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' section 9 Charter rights were also violated.

The court awarded general and punitive damages against the RCMP and Niagara Police, but dismissed the claims against the CBSA as statute-barred under the Customs Act.

The defendants sought costs following their successful motion for production of documents.

The court noted that the defendants had to bring the motion to obtain basic, relevant, and proportionate disclosure to which they were entitled, including documents the plaintiff had undertaken to provide.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion for discovery to compel the plaintiff to produce medical, employment, and service dog records that were refused at his examination for discovery.

The plaintiff is suing the police for alleged physical and mental harm, loss of income, and loss of opportunity to train his dog as a service animal.

The court found the requested records relevant to damages and causation, and ordered the plaintiff to produce the records or provide proof of best efforts to obtain them.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to unseal a search warrant and to compel the defendants to provide answers to questions refused during examination for discovery.

The court denied leave for further discovery due to a five-year delay in seeking answers and the nature of the questions, which would contravene a sealing order and potentially identify a confidential informant.

The application to unseal the search warrant was quashed because it was not brought before the proper court as stipulated by s. 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code, as the civil action for damages was not considered a proceeding "arising out of the investigation."

This is a motion to review the decision of Justice M.L. Benotto dismissing a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The Court of Appeal panel found that Benotto J.A. applied the correct test and saw no basis to interfere with her discretionary decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff sued the Niagara Regional Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation and Charter breaches after being arrested and detained for 78 days on charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

Following a 9-day trial, the court found that while one officer breached the standard of care by failing to review a video interview, this omission did not cause the plaintiff's continued incarceration.

The court concluded the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike 34 paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to comply with the rules of pleading.

The plaintiff's action alleged excessive force and unlawful arrest during a mental health apprehension.

The court found that the impugned paragraphs breached the rules of pleading by including irrelevant facts, pleading evidence, containing scandalous or argumentative statements, and making detailed legal arguments.

The motion was granted, the offending paragraphs were struck, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the police for false arrest and excessive force.

She moved for summary judgment, an order striking the defence for failure to produce relevant material, and other relief.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the evidence did not establish the absence of a genuine issue for trial, particularly given conflicting eyewitness accounts.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike the defence, finding no evidence that the defendant failed to disclose the 911 tapes or other relevant information.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for damages arising from an alleged unlawful arrest on October 14, 2006.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred in finding he was intoxicated, belligerent and aggressive, and that the arrest was without cause.

The appellant also argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the effect of his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by evidence and his legal conclusions regarding the elements of causing a disturbance were correct.

The court also confirmed that an acquittal on criminal charges does not preclude a finding of unlawful arrest in civil proceedings due to different parties and burdens of proof.

This costs judgment followed a simplified procedure trial where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The defendants, represented by salaried counsel, sought costs of $68,093.99.

The court considered the plaintiff's modest financial circumstances, the complexity of the issues, and the plaintiff's conduct, which included disclosure problems and "wild" settlement offers that significantly exceeded the Simplified Rules' limits.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness, and acknowledging the defendants' reasonable hourly rates and disbursements, the court fixed costs at $35,000, inclusive of disbursements.

This decision balanced the need for indemnification of the successful party with the unsuccessful litigant's ability to pay and access to justice concerns.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against several police officers and the police services board for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and breach of his Charter rights following his arrest for causing a disturbance and assaulting a police officer.

The plaintiff had been acquitted of the criminal charges.

The court found that the plaintiff was severely intoxicated, belligerent, and aggressive on the night in question, and that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, concluding that the arrest and detention were lawful, the investigation was not negligent, and there was no malice or Charter breach.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs on the basis that the plaintiff resided outside Ontario and had no assets in the province.

The plaintiff alleged an assault by police officers in Ontario but relied on asserted assets in New York State and reciprocal enforcement legislation to resist the motion.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient objective evidence establishing that the foreign assets were appropriate and sufficient to satisfy a potential costs order.

The court also rejected arguments that financial hardship caused by the alleged assault or the Victims’ Bill of Rights precluded the order.

Balancing the relevant factors, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs.