Richard Rudolphe George Marks

The court issued supplementary reasons and a costs decision following a summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant Crime Stoppers could not rely on s. 3(3) of the Libel and Slander Act because it was not pleaded and that s. 3(7) applied due to a refusal to broadcast a statement.

The court clarified that Crime Stoppers was permitted to amend its defence to rely on s. 3(3) and that s. 3(7) did not apply as there was no refusal to publish a retraction, given the publication was removed and the plaintiff's counsel indicated satisfaction.

Regarding costs, the parties agreed to no order as to costs between the plaintiff and the Ottawa Police Services Board, and costs of the motion between the plaintiff and Crime Stoppers were made payable in the cause, to be fixed by the trial judge.

The plaintiff sued Ottawa Capital Area Crime Stoppers and the Ottawa Police Services Board for defamation and negligence after police posted her image on the Crime Stoppers website, identifying her as a "suspect" who "stole a purse." The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted Crime Stoppers' motion to dismiss the defamation claim, finding it had a complete statutory defence under s. 3(3) of the Libel and Slander Act.

However, the police defendants' motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim was dismissed, as genuine issues for trial remained regarding available defences.

Both defendants' motions to dismiss the negligence claims were also dismissed, as the existence of a duty of care could not be determined on affidavit evidence.

The applicant, having been the more successful party in a ten-day family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, arrears, life insurance, and equalization, sought partial and full indemnity costs.

The respondent argued for divided success and sought costs based on her offers to settle.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, noting the importance and difficulty of the custody issues.

While the applicant made no formal offers, both parties demonstrated reasonable behaviour in attempts to settle.

The court assessed the reasonableness of counsel's rates and the time spent, adjusting for prior cost awards and excessive hours claimed by the applicant.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent to the applicant.

This trial addressed custody, parenting schedule, child support, and life insurance for the parties' child.

The court ordered joint custody, an equal residential schedule, and found shared custody for child support purposes, resulting in no ongoing table child support from June 1, 2017, due to equal incomes.

Arrears were calculated, and both parents were ordered to maintain life insurance for the child.

A divorce order was also issued.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim to discontinue certain plaintiffs, add a municipal lawyer as a defendant, and deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim alleging malicious prosecution and related torts.

The court held that the proposed addition of the new defendant was barred by the applicable limitation period under the discoverability principle, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the individual’s alleged involvement more than two years before the motion was argued.

The court found that merely delivering a motion before the limitation period expired did not suspend the running of time; the motion must be successfully argued within the limitation period.

As a result, the request to add the proposed defendant and amend the claim to seek damages against him was refused, although leave to discontinue certain plaintiffs was granted.

Costs were awarded against the moving party.

Following dismissal of a legal negligence action against a lawyer and her firm, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought full indemnity costs after an eight‑day trial, arguing the plaintiff pursued unfounded allegations, including claims impugning the lawyer’s honesty, and continued litigation despite evidence showing no negligence or damages.

The court applied the principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the purposes of indemnification, encouraging settlement, and discouraging improper conduct.

Finding the plaintiff advanced serious unsubstantiated allegations, changed evidence at trial, and pursued the action despite knowing it lacked merit, the court held the conduct was exceptional and reprehensible.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and awarding costs to the defendant.

The underlying claim alleged constructive dismissal arising from a family business arrangement relating to the development and operation of a golf club.

The appellant argued that his delay in prosecuting the action was explained by depression and anxiety that prevented him from instructing counsel and advancing the litigation.

The court held that the Master correctly applied the two-part test requiring both a satisfactory explanation for delay and absence of prejudice to the defendants.

Given the prolonged inactivity and the death of a key defence witness during the delay, the Master committed no error in dismissing the action and awarding costs.

The plaintiff brought a solicitor negligence claim against her former family lawyer arising from advice provided during the negotiation and execution of a separation agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyer failed to meet the standard of care by not ensuring full financial disclosure, by allegedly mischaracterizing settlement funds from employment litigation, and by permitting a final spousal support release.

The court found that the lawyer repeatedly advised the plaintiff not to sign a final agreement without full financial disclosure and even proposed a partial agreement pending further disclosure, but the plaintiff chose to proceed due to time pressure related to a home purchase.

Expert evidence established that the lawyer’s conduct met the standard of care for family law practitioners in the circumstances.

The court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove causation or damages, as later financial disclosure demonstrated the separation agreement was fair and reasonable.

The defendant physicians brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a medical negligence action arising from complications following bowel surgery and epidural analgesia.

The plaintiff alleged failures in diagnosis and treatment of an epidural catheter infection, failure to obtain informed consent, and related causation issues after developing an epidural abscess requiring additional surgery.

Applying the “full appreciation test” for summary judgment from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held that the voluminous evidentiary record, conflicting expert evidence, and credibility issues required a trial for most allegations.

However, certain claims were dismissed: allegations relating to the surgeon’s performance of the initial surgery lacked supporting expert evidence, and claims against one physician based on a novel duty of care as a member of the Acute Pain Service failed to disclose a prima facie duty of care.

The remaining negligence, informed consent, limitation, and causation issues were ordered to proceed to trial.