Murray John Klippenstein

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order upholding a registrar's dismissal of his action for delay.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in assessing the explanation for the delay, inadvertence, and prejudice, and failed to prioritize determining claims on their merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge applied the correct legal principles and made no palpable and overriding factual errors.

The motion judge properly found the appellant failed to adequately explain the delay, failed to show the delay was due to inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, noting actual prejudice due to the loss of key evidence.

The representative plaintiffs in two class actions against the Toronto Police Services Board for wrongful arrest and detention during the 2010 G20 Summit sought court approval for a proposed settlement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included up to $16.5 million in financial compensation, a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, commitments to reform policing of public demonstrations, and expungement of arrest records.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant non-monetary components and the risks of proceeding to trial.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, which amounted to approximately 28 percent of the recovery, as fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Amended Statement of Claim to include further particulars regarding the alleged involvement of the Guatemalan police and military in sexual assaults during forced evictions, in addition to private security personnel.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments constituted a new cause of action, were unduly delayed, and would cause prejudice.

The court found that the proposed amendments were particulars of existing negligence claims, not a new cause of action, and that no actual or presumed prejudice would result to the defendants.

Leave to amend was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to amend his statement of claim for a third time in an action for defamation and negligence against his former spouse, the police, and the Children's Aid Society.

The proposed amendments sought damages for the adverse outcomes of family law proceedings, alleging they were tainted by the defendants' false accusations that the plaintiff was a terrorist.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the amendments raised statute-barred causes of action and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the family law decisions.

The Master granted the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the amendments would fail, as they arguably pleaded a continuous course of damage rather than new causes of action, and the collateral attack issue was better left for trial.

Following a successful appeal regarding the operation of a homeless shelter, the appellant church sought full indemnity costs of $163,479.54, arguing it was a public interest litigant.

The respondent municipality argued no costs should be awarded as it was also acting in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding the case did not meet the exceptional threshold for full indemnity costs under Carter, nor did the municipality's enforcement of its by-law exempt it from the normal costs rules.

Costs were awarded to the appellant on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $90,000.

The appellant church operated a homeless shelter in its basement.

The respondent municipality sought an injunction to stop the shelter, arguing it violated the local zoning by-law which permitted 'church' uses but prohibited soup kitchens and food banks.

The application judge granted the injunction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in his interpretation of the by-law.

The Court found that the homeless shelter fell within the by-law's definition of 'church-sponsored community activities and projects'.

The appeal was allowed and the injunction was dismissed.

During the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, the appellant and his friends were walking down a public street intending to demonstrate in support of animal rights.

They were stopped by police officers who demanded to search their bags as a condition of proceeding further.

The appellant refused and was grabbed and pushed by an officer.

The Court of Appeal held that the police conduct was not authorized by the common law ancillary powers doctrine, as it was not reasonably necessary to preserve the peace.

The court found that the police violated the appellant's common law right to travel unimpeded and his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court also held that the officer committed the tort of battery, as he lacked lawful authority and the contact was unnecessary.

The appellant was successful on an appeal of a Master's refusal to allow amendments to a Statement of Claim and sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the appellant for both the motion before the Master and the appeal, totaling $15,405.75.

However, the respondent successfully argued that the costs order should be stayed because the appellant had two outstanding costs orders against him in other proceedings totaling over $330,000.

The court stayed the costs order until the appellant paid the outstanding costs orders, noting that a party cannot seek the court's assistance while refusing to respect its previous orders.

Following a successful appeal that certified a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the court determined the costs of the original certification motion.

The appellant sought over $749,000, while the respondent argued for costs thrown away or no costs due to the appellant significantly reformulating her claim on appeal.

The Divisional Court held that while the appellant was entitled to costs because the case involved matters of public interest, the amount must be reduced to reflect the time spent on claims against defendants that were later abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the original certification motion at $125,728.03 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision refusing leave to amend a Statement of Claim in a defamation action.

The proposed amendments sought to add specific defamatory words allegedly spoken by the respondent to the police.

The Master had ruled that adding the specific words constituted a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying a broader, factually-oriented approach to the definition of a 'cause of action'.

The Court found that the amendments were a continuation of the existing claim arising from the same factual matrix, and the respondent was not taken by surprise.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board arising from mass detentions during the 2010 G20 summit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court certified two separate class actions: one for five location-based subclasses who were allegedly arbitrarily detained by police cordons, and another for individuals held at a specially created detention centre.

The applicant sought declarations that police actions during the 2010 G20 summit violated his Charter rights to liberty, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly, and alleged battery by an officer after he refused to permit a search of his backpack near the G20 security perimeter.

Police prevented him from proceeding southbound toward the summit site unless he permitted a search.

The court held that the police conduct was authorized under common law ancillary police powers and the Police Services Act duty to preserve the peace, given the heightened security context following violent riots the previous day.

Applying the Waterfield test and Supreme Court jurisprudence on investigative detention and security measures, the court found the interference with liberty minimal and justified.

The application was dismissed and the battery claim rejected as de minimis and protected under statutory authority.

A municipality sought an injunction preventing a church from operating a homeless men’s shelter in the basement of its church building in contravention of a zoning by-law enacted under the Planning Act.

The respondent argued the shelter constituted a church-sponsored activity or accessory use and alternatively claimed enforcement infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

The court held the shelter constituted an “emergency shelter” use not permitted within the zoning designation and not an accessory church use.

Enforcement of the zoning by-law did not substantially interfere with religious freedom because the restriction concerned the location of the shelter rather than the ability to operate one.

A declaration and permanent injunction were granted prohibiting continued operation of the shelter at the property.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding related to policing during the G20 Summit, the court determined the costs payable to a successful defendant.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be ordered because the case raised novel legal issues and matters of public interest.

The court held that although the action involved issues of public interest, the certification motion was seriously flawed and the novelty argument was unfounded.

Applying the governing principles for class proceeding costs and considering comparable certification cost awards, the court concluded that a reduced costs award was appropriate.

Costs were fixed at $200,000 in fees plus disbursements and applicable taxes, payable by the plaintiff and indemnified by the Class Proceedings Fund.

The plaintiffs, indigenous Mayan Q'eqchi' from Guatemala, sued a Canadian mining company and its subsidiaries for human rights abuses allegedly committed by security personnel at a mining project in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that a parent company does not owe a duty of care for the actions of its foreign subsidiary.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the negligence claims would fail, as the plaintiffs pleaded facts that could establish a novel duty of care.

The court also dismissed a motion to strike one of the actions as statute-barred, finding that the claim was based on sexual assault and fell within the exception in section 10 of the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

The moving parties, a Children's Aid Society and its employees, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding party father's claims of slander, intentional wrongdoing, and negligence.

The claims arose from the Society's handling of false allegations made by the mother and police that the father was a terrorist and cult leader.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the slander claim, as the alleged defamatory statements were written, not spoken.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the negligence and intentional tort claims, finding that the Society may owe a duty of care to a parent in a negligent investigation context, and that evidence of potential bad faith precluded the application of statutory immunity or the Syl Apps immunity doctrine.

The matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The court-appointed receiver of a non-profit housing co-operative moved for approval of an agreement of purchase and sale with a non-profit corporation.

The sale would preserve the property as affordable housing but required an increase in occupancy fees to fund necessary repairs.

A competing bidder submitted a revised offer after the bid deadline, matching the financial terms and offering a one-year freeze on occupancy fees, but without a long-term commitment to affordable housing.

Applying the Soundair test and considering the special factors for co-operative housing, the court found the receiver's process was fair and the recommended offer was not improvident.

The motion to approve the sale was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Energy Board's Demand Side Management guidelines, arguing they were improperly adopted without a hearing and were binding on parties.

The Board, supported by intervenors, brought a motion to quash the application as moot.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the guidelines were not binding, as evidenced by subsequent rate hearings where the Board departed from them and an affidavit from Board counsel.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, noting the applicant could challenge the guidelines in future rate proceedings.

Following a successful defence motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $42,000.

The court accepted that elevated costs were justified due to the plaintiff’s nearly twenty‑year failure to advance the litigation.

However, the court found the defendants’ bill of costs inadequately detailed and the claimed amount excessive.

Balancing the plaintiff’s unexplained delay against the insufficient cost justification, the court fixed a reduced substantial indemnity award.