Richard J. Bosada

The moving party defendants, who were directors of the corporate defendants, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim against them for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs, who sold their family farm to the corporate defendants and were left with worthless preference shares following insolvency proceedings, alleged the directors acted oppressively and sought personal liability under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim sufficiently pleaded facts that, if proven, could support a finding of oppression and personal liability against the directors.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The defendant sought a review of the plaintiff's defamation claim under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and that the alleged defamatory statements enjoyed absolute privilege.

The court found this was an inappropriate use of Rule 2.1, as the rule contemplates a review based on the face of the pleading without additional submissions or evidence from the defendant, especially after a statement of defence and particulars had been exchanged.

The court advised the defendant to bring a motion under Rule 25.11 or for summary judgment instead.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to stay a summary judgment motion initiated by the defendants.

The trial was scheduled for May 2018, and the summary judgment motion was scheduled for March 2018.

The plaintiffs argued the motion required leave and was inappropriate.

The court found that leave was not required because the defendants had not consented to the action being placed on a trial list.

However, the court permanently stayed the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not resolve the entire action, would duplicate efforts, and could delay the scheduled trial.

The accused, a pharmacist charged with trafficking in Fentanyl, public mischief, fraud, and conspiracy to commit robbery, brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 11(b) rights due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 28 months and 11 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice trials.

After calculating defence delay at approximately 5.5 months, the net delay was approximately 23 months, exceeding the ceiling.

The Crown sought to justify the excess delay based on case complexity and transitional case considerations.

The court found the case was not particularly complex but accepted the transitional case exception, considering the institutional delays plaguing the Ottawa jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offences, prejudice to the accused, and the defence's lack of diligence in moving the case forward.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial as scheduled.

The defendants Brent Timmons and BrazeauSeller LLP requested an order dismissing the claim against them under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous and vexatious.

The court, following established jurisprudence, found that the abusive nature of the proceeding was not apparent on the face of the pleading, and no Statement of Claim was provided by the moving parties.

The court dismissed the request, stating that recourse to the attenuated process of Rule 2.1 was not appropriate and any argument should be made by way of a formal Notice of Motion.