Nadia Laeeque

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim alleging malicious prosecution and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution following a fraud charge that was later stayed.

The court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The conspiracy allegations lacked the necessary particulars regarding the alleged agreement and overt acts of the conspirators.

The malicious prosecution claim also failed because the pleadings did not adequately allege absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice, as required by the Supreme Court of Canada in Miazga v. Kvello Estate.

The statement of claim against the Attorney General was therefore struck.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office and related claims arising from a temporary cease trade order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The plaintiff alleged the order had expired and that subsequent prosecutions and regulatory proceedings were therefore unlawful.

The court held that the validity of the cease trade order had already been determined in multiple prior regulatory and criminal proceedings, including a guilty plea and unsuccessful appeals.

Applying issue estoppel and the doctrine of abuse of process, the court concluded that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues already conclusively determined.

The action was dismissed with prejudice.

Following dismissal of a motion by the Crown to strike a negligence and negligent misrepresentation claim arising from a government procurement process for school bus services, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs while the Crown argued for a lower partial indemnity award.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the fairness principles from Boucher, the court held that the motion, although unsuccessful, was not wholly devoid of merit and therefore did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court also rejected the Crown’s submission that HST should not be included in a costs award against it.

Partial indemnity costs of $39,897 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Special Investigation Unit (SIU), a non-party to the civil action, appealed an order requiring it to produce an unedited copy of its investigation file, specifically the SIU Director's Report to the Attorney General.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in determining the report was relevant.

The court held that the information in the report was derivative of other sources in the file, and the Director's legal analysis and lead investigator's assessment were not relevant to any material issue in the action.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a related criminal proceeding involving the applicant.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the legal issues in both proceedings arose out of the same factual circumstances, the applicant consented to the deferral, and proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

On a Rule 21 and Rule 25 motion, the moving defendants sought to strike a statement of claim alleging malicious prosecution, negligence, conspiracy, and related causes of action.

The court held it was plain and obvious the malicious prosecution and false arrest allegations could not succeed because the claimant's conviction had been upheld on appeal.

The court further held the negligence allegations tied to correctional policy decisions and claims against the public guardian failed to disclose a private law duty of care, and many allegations constituted impermissible collateral attack and abuse of process.

The statement of claim was struck as against the moving defendants and the action against them was dismissed, with costs awarded to those defendants.