Nancy Erickson

On a summary judgment motion in an action arising from criminal breach of trust charges against a police officer responsible for sex offender registry administration, the court dismissed the claims for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution.

Applying the modern summary judgment framework and the elements of negligent investigation, the court held the moving parties did not initiate the criminal proceedings and, in any event, there were reasonable and probable grounds for the charges based in part on findings made in the prior criminal reasons.

The evidentiary record was found insufficient to support the pleaded conspiracy and Charter damages claims, but the court declined to dismiss them outright and granted leave to file a further fresh as amended pleading limited to those causes of action.

Claims against the police service as a non-entity were also dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim in a negligence action arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision.

They sought to add claims for post‑traumatic stress disorder suffered by a surviving spouse and related income loss, as well as expanded Family Law Act damages for a child.

The defendants argued the amendment introduced a new cause of action outside the limitation period and improperly pleaded evidence.

The court held the proposed amendment merely added a new head of damages arising from the same material facts already pleaded and therefore did not constitute a new cause of action.

The amendment was permitted, except for portions that improperly pleaded evidentiary details.

The defendant hotel moved for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff, who resided outside Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant delayed in bringing the motion and that he was impecunious, meaning an order would stifle a meritorious claim.

The court found the delay was explained and not fatal.

However, the court determined the plaintiff was impecunious and his negligence claim against the hotel for failing to provide appropriate security was not plainly devoid of merit.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed an appeal from an arbitration award regarding an insurance dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that both the arbitrator and the lower court judge correctly interpreted the terms 'gross vehicle weight' and 'trailer'.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Divisional Court regarding insurance coverage for a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the conduct of the Ministry and/or OPP constituted separate causes of the accident, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Derksen.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if there were separate causes, the bodily injury still arose through the use and operation of an automobile.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision that allowed the plaintiff insurer to pursue a subrogated claim for the recovery of statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 267.8(17) of the Insurance Act bars such subrogated claims.

The court found that the exception in section 267.8(18) applies exclusively to the Ministry of Health and does not permit automobile insurers to subrogate against unprotected defendants.