M.J. Pretsell

Following a successful summary judgment dismissing a $7,000,000 civil action alleging numerous torts including conspiracy, defamation, fraud, and malicious prosecution, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff, self-represented, filed no responding costs submissions.

The court found the litigation was particularly acrimonious and that the plaintiff’s conduct throughout was unreasonable, including scandalous allegations against the defendants, police, and Crown counsel.

The defendants’ offer to settle for dismissal without costs triggered Rule 49 consequences as they were entirely successful.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a civil action alleging numerous torts including malicious prosecution, defamation, invasion of privacy, trespass, assault, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff failed to establish essential elements of malicious prosecution, including termination of the criminal proceedings in his favour, lack of reasonable and probable cause, and malice.

The remaining claims were either unsupported by evidence, barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, or not viable in law.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the entire action.