Natalie Salafia

The self-represented appellant, Mr. Asghar, brought a motion for panel review of a chambers judge's order that dismissed his interim motion.

The interim motion sought production of 911 recordings and police video/audio, permission for electronic filing, and an extension of time to perfect his appeals.

The underlying appeals were from orders dismissing his actions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The panel dismissed the request for production, finding no basis to interfere with the chambers judge's discretionary decision, but granted a 30-day extension to perfect the appeals.

The self-represented moving party, Mr. Asghar, brought a motion to the Court of Appeal to review a chambers judge's order.

The chambers judge had dismissed Mr. Asghar's interim motion seeking production of video/audio recordings, permission for electronic filing/service, and an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Asghar's panel review motion, finding no basis to interfere with the chambers judge's discretionary decision, which is entitled to deference absent legal error or misapprehension of material evidence.

The court also clarified that electronic filing and service of appeal materials are generally permitted under its practice directions, negating the need for a specific order.

The appellant brought a motion to vary a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated June 11, 2019.

The court found that the narrow grounds upon which such a decision may be varied were not present and dismissed the motion.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court decision.

Due to mixed success of the parties in both the lower court and on appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the costs order from the lower court and ordered that no costs be awarded for either the proceedings in the lower court or the appeal.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a largely successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $26,687.94 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, M.W., argued for a significant reduction to $8,807.02, citing modest means and the defendants' partial, rather than complete, success.

The court acknowledged the plaintiff's arguments but found the proposed reduction too substantial.

Considering the defendants' "large part" success on the summary judgment motion, the volume of materials filed, and a comparative case, the court exercised its discretion to award the defendants $25,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend.

The appellant had been charged with careless driving following a motor vehicle collision, but the charge was withdrawn.

He subsequently sued for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy.

The motion judge struck the claim as frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had adequately pleaded the elements of negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy, albeit with significant scandalous and irrelevant material.

The court varied the order, striking only the scandalous portions without leave to amend while permitting the remainder to proceed with leave to amend.

The defendants, Halton Regional Police Services Board and Constable Ross Amore, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff M.W.'s action for damages.

M.W. alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious breach of public duty, malicious prosecution, misfeasance of public office, and Charter rights violations stemming from two police investigations in 2015 and 2016.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing all claims related to the March 23, 2016 arrest for assault, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether M.W. was detained and his Charter rights violated during questioning on February 19, 2015, allowing that specific claim to proceed.

The police defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, who had been charged with careless driving, alleged a broad organized crime conspiracy, racial profiling, and malicious investigation by the police.

The court found that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it contained bald, inflammatory allegations unsupported by material facts and failed to plead the required elements for conspiracy, negligent investigation, or Charter breaches.

The motion was granted and the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

Following an eight-day jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in general damages for assault by a police officer, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $86,655.32.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded as the damages fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, denied the plaintiff's request for costs.

The judge found the case was not complex, the award was not close to the Small Claims maximum, and the plaintiff failed to adequately assess the quantum of damages, making the Superior Court an inappropriate venue for the action.