Not specified

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), as litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ki Ho Kim, brought a motion for court approval of a $25,000 settlement in a slip and fall action.

Kim opposed the settlement and sought to set aside a prior order appointing the PGT as his litigation guardian, arguing he was no longer under disability.

The court reviewed multiple capacity assessments, all confirming Kim's mental incapacity.

The court dismissed Kim's motion, affirming his status as a party under disability and the PGT's authority.

The court then approved the proposed settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in Kim's best interests, and ordered the distribution of funds.

This motion, initiated by a request from the defendant's lawyers and referred by the Registrar under Rule 2.1.01(7), concerned the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The action had been previously stayed pending notice to the plaintiff regarding a potential dismissal under Rule 2.1.

Despite responding, the plaintiff failed to address the claim's similarity to prior dismissed actions.

The court found the claim frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, dismissing it under Rule 2.1 and awarding costs to the defendant.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The respondents brought a request under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, citing numerous prior cases involving the applicant.

The court dismissed the respondents' Rule 2.1.01 request, holding that determining whether the applicant was relitigating would require an extensive review of many prior decisions, which meant the pleadings were not *on their face* frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The interim stay on the application was vacated, and the applicant was awarded costs.

This endorsement addresses a joint case conference for two unrelated actions, Seacliff Energy Ltd. et al. v. Dairy Lane Systems Limited et al. and Joseph Maio et al. v. Kapp Contractuing Inc. et al., which share a common legal issue regarding the applicability and interpretation of a waiver of subrogation clause in builders' risk insurance policies.

The defendants in both actions sought to schedule concurrent summary judgment motions to resolve this discrete issue before mediation.

The court, emphasizing the primary goal of moving cases toward settlement or trial, ordered that mediations proceed as scheduled.

It declined to schedule the summary judgment motions concurrently due to the complexity and differing facts of each case, instead setting a partial schedule for motion records, responding materials, cross-examinations, and further case conferences.

Costs from previous hearings and the case conference were reserved.

This endorsement addresses a joint case conference for two unrelated actions, Seacliff Energy Ltd. et al. v. Dairy Lane Systems Limited et al. and Joseph Maio et al. v. Kapp Contractuing Inc. et al., which share a common legal issue regarding the applicability and interpretation of a waiver of subrogation clause in builders' risk insurance policies.

The defendants in both actions sought to schedule concurrent summary judgment motions to resolve this discrete issue before mediation.

The court, emphasizing the primary goal of moving cases toward settlement or trial, ordered that mediations proceed as scheduled.

It declined to schedule the summary judgment motions concurrently due to the complexity and differing facts of each case, instead setting a partial schedule for motion records, responding materials, cross-examinations, and further case conferences.

Costs from previous hearings and the case conference were reserved.

The applicant commenced a civil application seeking to stay ongoing criminal charges against him, alleging violations of his Charter rights.

The respondents requested the court review the application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that seeking to stay ongoing criminal proceedings via a civil claim appears to be an abuse of process on its face, as the applicant could seek relief within the criminal proceedings.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it is considering dismissing the application and stayed the proceeding pending the applicant's written submissions.

The applicant commenced a civil application seeking to stay ongoing criminal charges against him, alleging violations of his Charter rights.

The respondents requested the court review the application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that seeking to stay ongoing criminal proceedings via a civil claim appears to be an abuse of process on its face, as the applicant could seek relief within the criminal proceedings.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it is considering dismissing the application and stayed the proceeding pending the applicant's written submissions.

Elizabeth Dias initiated two actions in Hamilton Superior Court against the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board/Tribunal and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, similar to previous actions dismissed in Toronto as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Hamilton actions were referred to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) for potential dismissal on the same grounds.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide submissions, Dias failed to address the frivolous or vexatious nature of the claims or the lack of jurisdiction against the defendants.

The court adopted prior reasoning that no claim could be made against WSIB or LCBO for unsuccessful workers' compensation claims or workplace injuries, as remedies lie exclusively with WSIB.

The court found the Hamilton actions to be attempts to re-litigate or collaterally attack previous decisions and dismissed them with costs, finding them frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiff's amended statement of claim as frivolous or vexatious under Rule 2.1.01(6), following a previous order striking out parts of the original claim with leave to amend.

The court found that while the claim might be weak, it was not "obvious on the face of the pleading" that it was frivolous or vexatious, and the pleaded facts logically related to a theoretical cause of action for breach of an articling principal's duties.

The court declined to issue a notice under Form 2.1A, allowing the action to proceed to defence or a potential summary judgment motion.

The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiff's amended statement of claim as frivolous or vexatious under Rule 2.1.01(6), following a previous order striking out parts of the original claim with leave to amend.

The court found that while the claim might be weak, it was not "obvious on the face of the pleading" that it was frivolous or vexatious, and the pleaded facts logically related to a theoretical cause of action for breach of an articling principal's duties.

The court declined to issue a notice under Form 2.1A, allowing the action to proceed to defence or a potential summary judgment motion.

The defendant requested an order under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's action alleged negligence related to a prescription drug and defamation by the Deputy Attorney General.

The court, applying the robust interpretation of Rule 2.1, found the pleading lacked clarity and particulars for defamation and considered the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The court decided to initiate the Rule 2.1 process, directing the Registrar to give notice to the plaintiff, staying the motion, and restricting further filings pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's statement of claim alleged a staged motor vehicle accident, falsified police reports, and a conspiracy to harm him, claiming damages for negligence, breach of the Police Services Act, breach of the City of Toronto Act, conspiracy, malicious falsehood, negligent investigation, breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code, and violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court, applying guidance from the Ontario Court of Appeal in *Scaduto*, found it appropriate to initiate the summary procedure under Rule 2.1.01.

The Registrar was directed to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff, inviting written submissions on why the proceeding should not be dismissed, and the motion was stayed pending this review.

This endorsement addresses an oral motion brought by applicants in four consolidated parentage applications involving assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

The motion sought to dispense with the Superior Court of Justice Practice Direction's requirements for formal notice and media notification regarding discretionary publication bans and sealing orders under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court considered the Dagenais/Mentuck test and the best interests of the child, finding that sealing orders are necessary to prevent serious risk to the proper administration of justice and to protect the privacy and dignity of the children, intended parents, surrogates, and their families.

The court concluded that the salutary effects of dispensing with notice and sealing the files outweigh any deleterious effects on public expression.

The plaintiff's action for $3.13 million in damages for "humiliation" and "aggravation" arising from debt collection efforts was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court had previously stayed the proceeding pending a response from the plaintiff regarding the contemplated dismissal, but no response was received.

The alleged misconduct related to a debt already subject to a previously dismissed proceeding, reinforcing the court's finding of abuse of process.

The plaintiff's action against her former employer, LCBO, alleging work-related illness and injuries from 1996-2004, was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found that the claims, which stemmed from unsuccessful WSIB claims, were precluded by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the WSIB and makes its decisions final and unreviewable by courts.

The action was deemed frivolous and an attempt to re-litigate a prior dismissed claim.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 to consider dismissing an action for damages, totaling over $970 million, against multiple defendants including a Children's Aid Society, a judge, and legal services.

The action was deemed potentially frivolous, vexatious, and an an abuse of process, given its similarity to previously dismissed claims and the immunity of some defendants.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice of intent to dismiss and stayed the action pending a written hearing.

The defendant requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff's statement of claim sought enforcement of City of Toronto Shelter Standards and a Staff Code of Conduct, but failed to set out facts supporting a legally recognized cause of action.

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

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for child support brought by a mother residing in Newfoundland and Labrador against a father residing in Ontario.

The applicant sought guideline child support retroactive to February 2000.

The respondent did not dispute paternity but claimed a verbal agreement that he would not pay support and that the applicant had not requested support for approximately eleven years.

The court denied retroactive support but ordered prospective support at a reduced amount due to the unique circumstances and the respondent's claimed hardship.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for child support brought by a mother residing in Newfoundland and Labrador against a father residing in Ontario.

The applicant sought guideline child support retroactive to February 2000.

The respondent did not dispute paternity but claimed a verbal agreement that he would not pay support and that the applicant had not requested support for approximately eleven years.

The court denied retroactive support but ordered prospective support at a reduced amount due to the unique circumstances and the respondent's claimed hardship.