Not listed

The court reviewed and approved the first interim report of the Independent Special Advisor (ISA) appointed to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims by former students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

The ISA's mandate was to determine if undisclosed OPP investigation documents could have materially affected the compensation paid to claimants.

The court approved the methodology and progress detailed in the report and directed the submission of a further interim report by the end of the year.

The court reviewed and approved the first interim report of the Independent Special Advisor (ISA) appointed to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims by former students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

The ISA's mandate was to determine if undisclosed OPP investigation documents could have materially affected the compensation paid to claimants.

The court approved the methodology and progress detailed in the report and directed the submission of a further interim report by the end of the year.

Costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence.

The court found that success on the motion was mixed, with both parties succeeding on some significant issues and failing on others.

As neither party was substantially successful, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence.

The court found that success on the motion was mixed, with both parties succeeding on some significant issues and failing on others.

As neither party was substantially successful, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Following a successful motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, the defendant sought costs of over $25,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff did not respond to the costs submissions.

The court found the requested amount excessive for a straightforward motion without cross-examinations and fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant requested permission to bring a motion in writing to re-open evidence on four motions for judgment while decisions were under reserve.

The court denied the request, noting that court operations were suspended due to COVID-19 and only urgent matters were being heard.

The court further noted that the applicant failed to follow previous case management directions requiring her to schedule a case management conference and provide a detailed agenda before bringing any motions.

The defendant requested a dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's claim sought $75 million in damages, alleging a vast conspiracy involving his employer, law firms, the government, and the police to silence him regarding corruption and murder.

The court found the allegations to be outrageous, with no chance of success, and indicative of significant mental health problems.

Relying on the mechanism to weed out clear cases of abuse, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process without seeking written submissions.

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought an unopposed motion to approve the sale of certain real estate assets.

The court approved the sale but issued reasons criticizing the Receiver's procedural conduct, specifically the late service of the motion record, late filing with the court, and excessive unilateral sealing of evidence.

The court emphasized the importance of the open court principle and the need to provide stakeholders with sufficient notice and information to make informed decisions.

The court refused to seal outdated appraisals and only temporarily sealed the summary of prior offers and the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The court issued a notice considering the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the plaintiff's submissions and the claim, the court found the pleading devoid of material facts, essential elements of causes of action, and necessary particulars.

The claim was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice considering the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the plaintiff's submissions and the claim, the court found the pleading devoid of material facts, essential elements of causes of action, and necessary particulars.

The claim was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The court issued a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff regarding a Statement of Claim that consisted of a single paragraph seeking to protect a future right to sue.

The plaintiff failed to respond.

The court dismissed the claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as it was devoid of any discernable legal cause of action.

The court issued a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff regarding a Statement of Claim that consisted of a single paragraph seeking to protect a future right to sue.

The plaintiff failed to respond.

The court dismissed the claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as it was devoid of any discernable legal cause of action.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which stemmed from alleged mistreatment at the plaintiff's government employment and her union's failure to advance her cause, was found to be patently non-justiciable and bore the hallmarks of a querulant litigant.

The court concluded the claim appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process with no chance of success.

Consequently, the court stayed the action and directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which alleged mistreatment by the plaintiff's union, appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and bore the hallmarks of a querulant litigant.

The court noted that the bulk of the complaints would fall within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action, stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing, and prohibited further filings other than the plaintiff's written submissions.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which alleged mistreatment by security guards during the plaintiff's removal from her employer's premises, was found to bear the hallmarks of a querulant litigant and appeared frivolous with no chance of success.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of a written hearing.

The applicant, previously convicted of defrauding the Ontario Student Loan Program, sought the return of funds garnished by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The CRA had garnished funds seized under Mareva injunctions obtained by banks.

The court noted that the CRA proceeded under valid Federal Court process and that a previous court order had already recognized the CRA's claims.

Finding that the application appeared to be an abuse of process attempting to re-litigate determined matters, the court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the applicant to explain why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant, previously convicted of defrauding the Ontario Student Loan Program, sought the return of funds garnished by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The CRA had garnished funds seized under Mareva injunctions obtained by banks.

The court noted that the CRA proceeded under valid Federal Court process and that a previous court order had already recognized the CRA's claims.

Finding that the application appeared to be an abuse of process attempting to re-litigate determined matters, the court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the applicant to explain why the application should not be dismissed.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an action against the defendant without obtaining the required leave of the court.

Pursuant to the mandatory terms of Rule 2.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court summarily dismissed the action.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a full indemnity basis.