Rebecca Hyun Joo Ro

The defendant, Executive Director of the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had previously amended the claim twice.

The court found the claim, which alleged unspecified torts related to the plaintiff's troubled relationship with McMaster University and the Secretariat's handling of research misconduct reports, disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court determined that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts supporting a private law duty of care or any recognized tort against the defendant, and that the claim consisted of bald, conclusory statements.

Given the repeated failures to cure deficiencies, leave to amend was denied, and the action was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order regarding amendments to a statement of claim.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Noting the moving party's history of numerous dismissed proceedings and the fundamental flaws in the current motion, the court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.

The court also imposed terms requiring the moving party to obtain permission before commencing further proceedings or seeking fee waivers in the Divisional Court.

This motion concerned the interpretation of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA) regarding Service Canada's subrogation rights to recover payments made to employees from an insolvent employer's distribution.

Metroland Media Group Ltd. made a proposal to its creditors, entitling unsecured creditors to a 17% distribution.

Service Canada had approved payments to former non-unionized employees under WEPPA for unpaid severance pay.

The issue was whether Service Canada was entitled to recover these payments on a dollar-for-dollar basis from the employees' distribution or only a pro-rata share (17 cents on the dollar) as an unsecured creditor.

The court held that Service Canada is entitled to a dollar-for-dollar recovery, up to the amount of the WEPP payment, from the employee's distribution before the employee receives any balance.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an endorsement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded nominal costs to the responding party.