Nicholas Rolfe

The applicant sought to review a decision by Justice Thorburn, who had denied his motion to extend time to review Justice Benotto's decision.

Justice Benotto had previously denied the applicant's motion to extend time to perfect his appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned the dismissal of the applicant's lawsuit against the respondent, an employee of the City of Toronto, regarding French language services.

Both Justice Benotto and Justice Thorburn found the applicant's lawsuit to have no chance of success, citing that individuals cannot be held liable for Charter damages and and that lawsuits against the City of Toronto are prohibited by specific legislation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's motion for review, finding no error of law or principle in the lower court's discretionary decisions regarding extensions of time.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's claim, which included legally unfounded claims for Charter damages against individuals.

The defendants sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the requested amount to be fair and reasonable given the serious allegations and the lack of clarity in the plaintiff's pleadings, which increased the time required to respond.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the former Chief of Police, and two police officers, alleging negligence and violations of the Charter and the Human Rights Code arising from his interactions with police when reporting an incident.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as Charter damages cannot be claimed against individuals, there is no private law duty of care for police investigations, and a freestanding Human Rights Code claim cannot be brought in civil court.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

The defendant sought costs after successfully bringing a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious.

The self-represented plaintiff did not make costs submissions.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the plaintiff's conduct in improperly noting the defendant in default and advancing novel legal theories, the court awarded the defendant costs of $10,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented moving party sought an extension of time to review a single judge's decision that had dismissed his motion to extend the time to perfect his appeal.

The underlying action sought Charter damages against a municipal employee for failing to provide services in French.

The court dismissed the motion, affirming that an individual cannot be held liable for damages under the Charter and that the underlying claim had no chance of success.

The applicant sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal of a lower court order dismissing his lawsuit.

The original lawsuit, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claimed pecuniary damages against a City of Toronto employee for failure to provide French services.

The motion for extension was denied due to the applicant's failure to demonstrate intent to appeal within the required timeframe, an unexplained lengthy delay, and the lack of merit of the underlying appeal.

The court found that an individual cannot be held liable for damages under the Charter, and the lawsuit against the city was prohibited by specific provincial statutes.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought an action for Charter damages against a municipal employee, alleging his rights were violated because he received inadequate service in French at a City of Toronto office.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding that Charter damages cannot be sought against an individual, the Charter's language rights do not apply to municipal institutions, and the French Language Services Act does not apply to the City of Toronto.

The claim was struck without leave to amend as it was radically defective.

The applicants, homeless individuals living in encampments in City of Toronto parks, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City from enforcing its by-law prohibiting camping in parks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicants argued that enforcement violated their rights under sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The City moved to exclude the applicants' expert medical evidence on the basis of bias, which the court dismissed, finding the evidence relevant and necessary.

On the injunction test, the court found the applicants raised a serious issue to be tried and established irreparable harm.

However, the balance of convenience favoured the City, as the City had taken significant steps to provide safe shelter spaces with physical distancing, and the public interest in maintaining parks for everyone's use outweighed the applicants' interest in a sweeping suspension of the by-law.

The motion was dismissed.