3 total
The court declined to strike a Charter claim alleging systemic sex discrimination in police investigations.
The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing no reasonable cause of action, lack of standing for the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, and that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
The plaintiffs sought declarations of systemic sex discrimination by the London Police Service in investigating sexual assault complaints and an order for a court-supervised external review.
The court allowed the motion in part, affirming that the claim was not plainly and obviously bound to fail and that the Clinic had public interest standing.
However, several paragraphs of the statement of claim were struck for pleading evidence or being vexatious and inflammatory.
Costs awarded to successful plaintiffs and third party; substantial indemnity triggered by Rule 49 offer.
Following a trial where the plaintiffs were successful and the third party action was dismissed, the court determined the costs payable by the defendants.
The plaintiffs were awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale up to the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter.
The third party was awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.
The court also fixed the prejudgment interest rate at 2.5% pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.
Upstream and downstream landowners need not be served in navigable waters declaration motion.
A municipality brought a motion seeking directions regarding service of a notice of application for a declaration under the Beds of Navigable Waters Act concerning whether a stream crossing the respondents’ property was navigable at the time of the original Crown grant in 1831.
The respondents asserted that the stream created a natural severance of their land and that the stream bed was unpatented Crown land.
The court held that the only issue in the application was whether the waterway was navigable at the time of the Crown grant, which affected only the parties to the proceeding.
Upstream and downstream landowners would need to litigate the issue independently based on their own Crown grants.
Accordingly, no additional parties were required to be served, and directions were provided regarding the order of proof at trial.