Robert N. Beaudoin

Following a motion in a labour dispute concerning airport picketing activity, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought relief relating to noise-making during picketing or relocation of picketers closer to airport entrances, but the motion was largely unsuccessful.

Although the court vacated certain trespass notices and relocated the picketers to a more visible area, it found that the plaintiff achieved the more favourable result and incurred significant costs responding to the motion.

The court was particularly critical of false statements made in an affidavit by one of the moving parties, which required cross-examination and additional evidence to refute.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants requested that the court invoke Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to address a statement of claim alleged to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The claim asserted numerous tort allegations and Charter breaches arising from events previously litigated before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court found that the action appeared to attempt to re‑litigate issues already determined by the tribunal and displayed hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The court directed the registrar to issue notice under Rule 2.1 that the action may be dismissed and ordered the proceeding stayed pending the outcome of the Rule 2.1 written process.

The defendants brought a motion for non-suit to dismiss the plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim and to withdraw the defence of qualified privilege from the jury regarding the plaintiff's defamation counterclaim.

The court granted the non-suit, finding no evidence that the defendants initiated the criminal proceedings, as the police exercised independent discretion.

The court also withdrew the defence of qualified privilege, ruling that statements made by the plaintiffs to a priest were not made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

The defendants brought a motion for non-suit to dismiss the plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim and to withdraw the defence of qualified privilege from the jury regarding a defamation counterclaim.

The court granted the motion for non-suit, finding no evidence that the defendants initiated the criminal proceedings, as the police exercised independent discretion in laying sexual assault charges.

The court also withdrew the defence of qualified privilege, ruling that statements made by the plaintiffs by counterclaim to a priest did not occur on a recognized occasion of qualified privilege, as there was no reciprocal duty or interest.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to determine whether the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Notice was provided to the plaintiff inviting written submissions.

No submissions were received within the prescribed 15‑day period.

The court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process and ordered it dismissed.

The court considered whether a civil action should be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

After issuing notice to the plaintiffs and inviting written submissions within the prescribed period, the court received no response.

Applying Rule 2.1.01, the court determined that the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process.

The action was therefore summarily dismissed without further hearing.

The plaintiffs were wholly successful on a motion brought by the defendants regarding claims of privilege over certain documents and seeking the removal of the plaintiffs' counsel of record.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs of $53,871.81.

The court found that while the plaintiffs were successful, they should have brought the motion to determine privilege themselves rather than forcing the defendants to do so.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the amount claimed disproportionate, and fixed costs at $25,000 plus HST and disbursements.

Union members subject to an injunction restricting protest activity at an international airport brought a motion to clarify or vary the existing order.

The dispute concerned whether drumming and other loud noise-making during picketing violated the injunction and whether trespass notices issued to certain union members were valid.

The court found the noise created a nuisance interfering with airport operations and safety obligations, particularly the ability to communicate during emergencies.

The injunction was varied to relocate picketers to a designated grassy area near the parkade and to prohibit the use of drums, improvised percussive devices, or amplification devices on airport premises.

Trespass notices issued to several individuals were ordered withdrawn.

Following a family law trial concerning custody and a proposed relocation of the children, the court determined costs after written submissions.

The respondent had advanced claims for sole custody and relocation but withdrew the mobility claim only on the eve of closing submissions after a full trial had proceeded.

The court found the respondent’s litigation conduct to be unreasonable and in bad faith under the Family Law Rules, including pursuing claims contrary to an assessment report and engaging in conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

Applying Rules 12(3), 18(14), and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering unaccepted offers to settle, the court awarded substantial and partial full recovery costs to the applicant.

Costs were ordered payable immediately.

The defendant brought a requisition under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal or a stay of the plaintiff’s action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had commenced multiple similar proceedings against various parties seeking extremely large damages and advancing allegations connected to family court custody proceedings.

The court found the claim appeared to be a collateral attack on a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice and contained implausible and scandalous allegations.

The court directed that notice be given to the plaintiff that dismissal under Rule 2.1 was being considered and stayed the action pending written submissions.

The applicants, a French-language public school board and a parent, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to suspend new regulations enacted by the Ontario Federation of School Athletics Associations (OFSAA).

The applicants argued that the regulations, which restricted students outside designated attendance zones from participating in OFSAA-sanctioned competitions in their designated sport, violated section 23 of the Charter by disproportionately impacting minority language students attending a specialized sports-study program.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious constitutional issue, irreparable harm due to the potential assimilation and loss of students, and a balance of convenience favouring the applicants.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The defendants sought relief under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to address a statement of claim that appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs alleged an extensive conspiracy involving government agencies and numerous public officials and sought billions of dollars in damages and criminal investigations.

The court noted that the plaintiffs had commenced several similar proceedings containing substantially the same allegations.

Finding the pleadings wholly deficient and abusive, the court directed the registrar to issue notice that the action may be dismissed under Rule 2.1, stayed the proceeding pending a written hearing, and restricted further filings except for written submissions permitted under the rule.

Child protection motion concerning the temporary care and custody of five children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The child protection agency sought an order placing the children in its temporary care for six months following allegations of domestic violence, physical discipline, and instability in the parental home.

The father opposed the motion and sought immediate placement of the children with him.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would likely suffer physical or psychological harm if returned to the father and concluded that supervision orders would not sufficiently protect them.

The court maintained the children in the agency’s temporary care and appointed an independent psychologist to conduct a parental capacity assessment under s. 54 of the Act.

The defendant filed a requisition under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The claim sought millions of dollars in damages and attempted to challenge prior family court decisions while alleging a conspiracy involving judges, lawyers, politicians, and others.

The court found the statement of claim appeared on its face to be a collateral attack on Ontario Court of Justice rulings and to contain sensational and unsupported allegations.

The court directed that the plaintiff be given notice that the action may be dismissed under Rule 2.1 and ordered the proceeding stayed pending the written hearing.

The registrar was instructed to accept no further filings except written submissions responding to the Rule 2.1 process.

The defendants filed requisitions under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of an action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The statement of claim alleged a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy involving financial institutions, a judge, government officials, and international figures, and sought trillions of dollars in damages.

The court noted the plaintiffs had commenced numerous similar proceedings and had previously had a claim dismissed under Rule 2.1.

Finding the pleadings facially problematic and potentially vexatious, the court initiated the Rule 2.1 process, stayed the action, and directed that the plaintiffs be given notice before a potential dismissal.

The defendant Crown filed a requisition under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking summary dismissal of a statement of claim as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought extraordinary relief including billions in damages and orders removing multiple judges from office and initiating criminal proceedings against them.

The court found the claim appeared to be a collateral attack on prior judicial decisions arising from the plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with earlier rulings.

Given the nature of the allegations and related proceedings commenced by the plaintiffs, the court concluded the action appeared frivolous and abusive on its face.

The court directed that notice be issued under Rule 2.1.01 and stayed the proceeding pending a written hearing on dismissal.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff obtained complete success in enforcing an agreement relating to the conveyance of land, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle and the defendant’s alleged reprehensible conduct before and during litigation.

The court held that the plaintiff achieved a result more favourable than its Rule 49 offer and that the defendant’s conduct, including unreasonable litigation positions and procedural steps that prolonged the proceedings, justified elevated costs consequences.

Applying Rule 49.10 and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs in a lump sum inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add allegations that the defendants’ litigation conduct, including alleged delay in producing privileged documents, constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and warranted punitive damages.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the test for allowing amendments, including whether the proposed claims were tenable at law.

The court held that no fiduciary duty exists between opposing parties during the conduct of litigation in the adversarial system and that litigation conduct alone cannot constitute an independent actionable wrong supporting punitive damages.

Alleged delay in document production is addressed through costs, not substantive claims.

The proposed amendments were therefore not legally tenable and were refused, though certain limited trial questions concerning knowledge of competing intellectual property claims were permitted.

A creditor applied under s. 37 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to vary a trustee’s decision not to realize on a bankrupt’s residential property, which initially had negative equity but later increased in value prior to discharge.

The court considered whether post‑bankruptcy increases in real property equity constituted after‑acquired property divisible among creditors.

The court held that increases in equity prior to discharge generally vest in the trustee for the benefit of creditors unless the trustee has formally divested the property.

However, because the bankrupt relied on representations from the trustee and continued making mortgage payments that reduced principal, equitable considerations applied.

The bankrupt was credited for principal reduction on the mortgage, while the creditor was entitled to the remaining increase in equity beyond the original appraisal.

A national student federation sought declarations that a student union remained a member and owed unpaid membership fees after the union held a referendum purporting to withdraw from the federation.

The court held the referendum invalid because it did not comply with the federation’s bylaws governing defederation, including requirements that a petition from individual student members initiate the process and that proper notice be provided.

The court found the referendum had been initiated and orchestrated by the student union’s executive rather than by individual members, contrary to the bylaws, and that other procedural requirements were not followed.

Because the referendum was invalid, the student union remained a member of the federation and was contractually obligated to remit membership fees.

Damages were awarded for unpaid fees accrued since the purported withdrawal.