R. Chown

The plaintiff, a volunteer fire captain and administrative assistant, was terminated without cause by the municipality's CAO based on unfounded, sexist rumours and gossip.

The court found the termination was conducted in bad faith and was tainted by patent gender-based discrimination.

The CAO also made defamatory statements about the plaintiff to the municipal council, which lost the protection of qualified privilege due to malice.

The court awarded the plaintiff six months' reasonable notice, $75,000 in moral damages, $35,000 for Human Rights Code violations, $20,000 for defamation, and $60,000 in punitive damages.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff argued that he brought the action in good faith, suffers from a head injury, and has limited income.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $10,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant brought a motion to strike certain passages of the statement of claim and to transfer the matter to small claims court.

The plaintiff claimed $53,500 arising from a joint property investment.

The court dismissed the request to transfer the matter, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim fell within the small claims court's monetary jurisdiction.

However, the court struck the plaintiff's claim for a Certificate of Pending Litigation as there was no interest in land in question, and struck several paragraphs of the statement of claim that were argumentative or lacked connection to the alleged breach of contract.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion seeking retroactive leave under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence and continue an action against the police board and several officers for false arrest and related claims.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's history of litigation against the police and the evidence provided in support of the current claim.

The court found that while the proceeding was not an abuse of process, the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of showing reasonable grounds for the proceeding, as he provided only a bald affidavit adopting the statement of claim and failed to refute police disclosure records indicating he was intoxicated and caused a disturbance.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

The court, on its own motion under Rule 2.1.03, stayed the plaintiff's action because it was instituted without leave, contrary to a prior vexatious litigant order.

The court directed that the action will be dismissed if the plaintiff does not commence an application for leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act within 60 days.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendants failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by rejecting an offer to reduce the purchase price by $50,000 and subsequently selling the property to a third party for $298,000 less than the original contract price.

The court found that the plaintiffs acted reasonably in their mitigation efforts and were not obligated to accept a new bargain from the breaching purchasers.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding the plaintiffs $368,585.95 in damages, representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs, less the deposit.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for substituted service on a defendant driver who could not be located following a motor vehicle accident.

Despite extensive efforts by process servers, the defendant's whereabouts remained unknown.

The court found that substituted service at the defendant's last known address was inappropriate because the documents were unlikely to come to his attention.

However, the court ordered that service be dispensed with and deemed the defendant noted in default.

The applicant, a candidate in the 2019 federal election, applied for relief under s. 477.7 of the Canada Elections Act from the consequences of the late filing of his electoral campaign return.

The applicant's official agent failed to file the return by the deadline and subsequently resigned and passed away.

The court found that the late filing occurred without the applicant's knowledge or acquiescence, satisfying the criteria under s. 477.7(a).

The application was granted, relieving the applicant from the consequences of the late filing.

The respondent father brought a motion to have the parties' 11-year-old daughter attend a French immersion school, while the applicant mother wanted her to attend a homogeneous French-language school.

The parties shared parenting time equally.

The court considered the best interests of the child, weighing factors such as the benefits of French-only instruction, the child's attachments to friends, the father's ability to participate in her education, and the status quo.

The court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to attend the homogeneous French-language school, as it represented the status quo and offered the benefits of full French instruction, despite the father's concerns about his ability to participate in her education.

The father's motion was dismissed.

Following a motion in which the moving party was fully successful, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The moving party sought full recovery of $4,886.69 due to the responding party's failure to comply with court orders.

The court fixed costs at $4,000, an amount above partial indemnity but less than full recovery, noting the responding party's non-compliance did not quite justify an extraordinary order for full costs.

The court also deferred scheduling a further hearing regarding the sale of the property to allow the responding party's intended appeal and stay motion to advance.

The plaintiffs and defendants swapped possession of their respective properties in 1991 without transferring title.

The plaintiffs obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board against the defendants for unpaid rent on one of the properties.

The defendants moved for an interlocutory injunction to stay the eviction order pending the resolution of the plaintiffs' action for title transfer and the defendants' counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the test for an injunction, as the plaintiffs had a strong case, the defendants did not adequately demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike parts of the plaintiff's statements of claim arising from alleged wrongful arrests related to an investigation into unpasteurized milk.

The Crown argued the claims against two police officers were statute-barred and the claims against a provincial investigator failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim against the officers was issued in time despite late service, and the pleadings against the investigator adequately alleged the necessary elements of the torts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action to avoid further delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action had been set down for trial in 2018 and faced significant delays.

The court adopted a conditional approach, ordering that the matter remain on the upcoming trial list and proceed as a judge-alone trial if reached while jury trials were unavailable.

If not reached, it would be rescheduled and proceed with a jury only if the court could accommodate one at that time.

The plaintiff electrical subcontractor moved for default judgment against the defendant general contractors in a construction lien action.

The homeowner defendants, who had also been noted in default, appeared and requested that the noting of default against them be set aside, arguing they had disputed liability early on but were ignored.

The court declined to grant default judgment against the general contractors immediately, as doing so would prejudice the homeowners' ability to dispute the quantum.

The motion was adjourned to allow the homeowners to bring a formal motion to set aside the noting of default.

The non-party insurer, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, brought a motion to quash four summonses issued by the plaintiff under Rule 39.03(5).

The plaintiff sought to examine four Gore employees in connection with an underlying motion brought by Gore to vary a Rule 30.10 production order.

The court granted the motion and quashed the summonses, finding that the intended examinations were unnecessary, would not enhance the record for the underlying motion, and appeared to be an abuse of process aimed at obtaining advance discovery for a separate insurer misconduct claim.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident case moved to amend their statement of claim to add three new defendants after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover their involvement within the limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding that there were issues of credibility and fact regarding when the plaintiffs ought to have discovered the claims, which warranted a trial.

The proposed defendants were granted leave to plead a limitation defence.

During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff sought disclosure of a recording of a closed municipal council meeting where her termination was discussed.

The defendants claimed solicitor-client, settlement, litigation, and confidential communications privilege.

Applying the Wigmore criteria, the court ordered partial disclosure.

The portion of the recording where the CAO justified the termination decision was ordered disclosed, as the benefit to the litigation outweighed the injury to the municipal relationship.

However, portions involving legal advice, anticipated negotiations, and council questions remained privileged.

The defendant brought three motions regarding trial consolidation, undertakings, refusals, and production from non-parties in two related motor vehicle accident actions.

The court declined to consolidate the actions but ordered them to be tried together.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit to further examination for discovery regarding a post-discovery photograph and deleted social media/website content related to a potential business.

Additionally, the court ordered the production of a property damage file from a prior accident due to overlapping injuries.

Costs of $3,500 per action were awarded to the defendant.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an order that the applicant husband provide a completed FSCO Application for Family Law Value for his pension.

The husband resisted the motion on the basis that the wife's claim for equalization was statute-barred and she must first obtain an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pension valuation was not necessary to determine the threshold issue of whether there were 'apparent grounds for relief' for the extension of time, and that ordering disclosure before the limitation issue was decided would run counter to the purpose of the statute.

The plaintiff attended a status hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal to establish a litigation timetable.

The remaining defendant argued the action should be dismissed for delay, citing the plaintiff's failure to advance the litigation since the appeal.

The court found that while the plaintiff's delay was unnecessary, it was not severe enough to warrant dismissal, especially given the defendant's own delay in delivering a statement of defence.

A litigation timetable was ordered.