Rafal Szymanski

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of law enforcement agencies found liable for the negligent arrest and detention of two senior citizens at the Canada/U.S. border, based on inaccurate information in the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) system.

The court held that, in the circumstances, the officers were required to verify the CPIC information before arresting the respondents.

The decision clarifies that the standard of care for police officers incorporates criminal law standards and that, depending on the context, officers may be required to verify database information before acting.

The court also rejected arguments that the law had changed since the incident or that the trial judge applied an inappropriately high standard.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents damages for their arrest at a border crossing.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that because the total damages awarded in each action exceeded $50,000 inclusive of prejudgment interest, the appeal exceeded the Divisional Court's monetary jurisdiction.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his 77-page statement of claim as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01, alleging malicious prosecution against his ex-partner and others after criminal harassment charges were withdrawn via a peace bond.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's discretionary decision, finding no misdirection or clear error, and affirmed that the claim and the appellant's communications constituted an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed two awards from a sole arbitrator in a commercial arbitration regarding a failed real estate project.

The first award granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims related to loan advances as time-barred.

The second award increased the amount of security for costs.

The Superior Court held that the standard of review for commercial arbitrations remains reasonableness under Sattva, as Vavilov did not overrule it in this context.

The court found the arbitrator's decisions on both the limitation period and the security for costs were reasonable and correct, and dismissed the appeals.

A police services board and a detective appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for false arrest, negligent investigation, and malicious prosecution, with significant damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on lack of reasonable and probable grounds and malice, and the cross-appeal, affirming the costs award.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $2,000.

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board applied for an order declaring Darren John a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

John had initiated numerous actions against the Board and other parties, many of which were dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and had accumulated over $140,000 in unpaid costs.

He also engaged in abusive conduct and failed to comply with court rules.

The court found that John persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner, aligning with the principles established in Re Lang Michener.

The application was granted, prohibiting John from instituting or continuing any proceedings in Ontario courts without leave of a Superior Court judge.

The respondent, Darren John, brought an oral motion for the recusal of the presiding judge, Daley RSJ, from hearing the applicant's vexatious litigant application, alleging actual or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent based his claim on previous adverse rulings and cost awards made by the judge against him in other actions.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no evidence to support the allegation of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the high threshold for such motions and the presumption of judicial impartiality.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff's counsel was censured for re-arguing the merits in costs submissions.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $30,000 to the defendants, a reduction from their requested $34,417.02, primarily due to the plaintiff's impecuniosity.

The decision balanced the defendants' right to costs with the plaintiff's access to justice.

The plaintiff, Dale James, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Peel Regional Police Services Board and four police officers, alleging unlawful arrest, detention, harassment, and Charter breaches.

The claims stemmed from an arrest for breach of recognizance based on outdated CPIC information and a subsequent investigative detention.

The defendants denied liability, asserting the arrest was lawful and the detention justified.

The court, applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the officers' knowledge regarding the recognizance, the reasonableness of the investigative detention, and allegations of racial profiling.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment for lost income due to the alleged improper denial of his Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and registration.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred, lacked statutory notice against the Crown, and the Charter claims were not actionable against individual defendants.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the entire action due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The court also found the claim against the Crown was barred for lack of statutory notice and the Charter claims against the individual defendants were non-actionable.

The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed due to serious credibility issues requiring a trial.

The appellants, a developer, appealed from a summary judgment that dismissed claims for conspiracy and negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation against appraisers, and ordered a mini-trial on claims of negligence, inducing breach of contract, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy and misrepresentation claims, finding no reasonable reliance and no evidence of conspiracy.

The court also set aside the mini-trial order and dismissed the remaining claims, finding they had no possibility of success due to lack of reliance, absence of unlawful conduct, and expiration of the limitation period.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to add additional defendants and seek damages of $76 million, punitive damages of $24 million, and an order striking down the Indian Act.

The motion was dismissed because it was brought without leave after the action had been set down for trial, in breach of Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant also objected to the composition of the appellate panel on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias, which the court rejected.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding him $500 for a Charter breach during a traffic stop, seeking higher damages and appealing the dismissal of his claim against the OIPRD.

The respondent police cross-appealed the finding that the traffic tickets were motivated by race.

The Divisional Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by basing the racial motivation finding solely on the officer's demeanour.

The court found no Charter breach and upheld the dismissal of the claim against the OIPRD, as there was no evidence of bad faith to overcome statutory immunity.

A citizen reported criminal activity by neighbours' sons to police, claiming she was promised confidentiality.

The police officer did not disclose that the interview was being videotaped.

The neighbours' sons were arrested, and the citizen's identity and videotaped interview were included in Crown disclosure.

The citizen was subsequently harassed and threatened by the neighbours, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder and relocation.

The trial judge found the police liable for breach of confidence and awarded general damages of $345,000, plus Family Law Act damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a promise of confidentiality, that necessary elements for the claim were not established, and that damages were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings and damage award.

The appellant commenced an action in January 2012 claiming negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and deceit relating to an investment and loan arranged in June 2008.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant argued she was unaware of her right to sue until receiving letters from the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada in 2011.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew the material facts of her claim by May 2009 at the latest, and that a lack of appreciation of the legal significance of those facts does not toll the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The plaintiff brought an action against several police officers and the Peel Police Services Board, alleging bad faith, bias, breach of trust, conspiracy, and harassment after police accompanied a third party to serve legal documents at the plaintiff's home and allegedly failed to investigate a threat.

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

The court found that the police owed no private duty of care to the plaintiff to investigate or warn him of the attendance.

The court also found the pleadings for conspiracy, bad faith, and harassment were deficient and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against multiple defendants, including the Peel Police, Toronto Police, OIPRD, and the City of Toronto, alleging negligent investigation, conspiracy, bad faith, and other torts arising from the handling of his stolen vehicle report and previous criminal convictions.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous and vexatious, as well as a motion for summary judgment.

The court struck the claims against the moving defendants, finding that the police and OIPRD owed no private duty of care to the plaintiff, the conspiracy allegations lacked material facts, and the claims regarding past convictions were impermissible collateral attacks.

Summary judgment was also granted dismissing claims of theft and Charter breaches during an arrest, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants sought costs of $22,806.35 on a partial indemnity basis after successfully dismissing the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion based on an expired limitation period.

The plaintiff, now self-represented, argued she could not pay due to financial hardship.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the defendants' prior offer to settle for $5,000, and awarded the defendants costs fixed at $18,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an investment-related civil claim on the basis that it was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit arising from a leveraged investment arrangement arranged through financial advisors.

The court held that the plaintiff knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the material facts giving rise to the claim by May 2009 at the latest.

Because the statement of claim was not issued until January 2012, the action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.