Robert Centa

The court dismissed Tianjian Wang’s action against the Attorney General of Canada and Joanne Gentile for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act bars civil actions by federal public service employees for employment-related disputes, requiring such matters to be addressed through the grievance process.

The court rejected constitutional challenges to section 236, finding it within Parliament’s authority and not discriminatory under the Charter.

The court dismissed James Brajak’s application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application sought declarations regarding beneficial ownership of a purported estate/trust and recognition as a “free private ecclesiastical person.” The court found the application lacked legal basis or merit, was not justiciable, and relied on nonsensical and religious arguments.

The court emphasized the importance of robustly applying Rule 2.1 to prevent waste of judicial resources.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The registrar referred the motion to the judge after a request from the defendants' counsel.

The court stayed the action pending a written hearing and directed the registrar to notify the plaintiff and restrict further filings except for the plaintiff’s submissions.

The judge will remain seized of the matter.

The court considered whether the applicant’s notice of application was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The registrar was directed to give notice to the applicant that the court is considering dismissing the action, and the application was stayed pending the outcome of a written hearing.

The applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed.

The court granted partial summary judgment in favour of Western Surety Company on its claim for exoneration against the defendants.

The decision reviews the legal principles underpinning exoneration clauses in surety indemnity agreements, the appropriateness of partial summary judgment, and the application of these principles to the facts.

The court found that the exoneration claim was discrete and severable from indemnification claims, that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, and that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to exonerate Western in the amount of $3,990,000.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related economic torts arising from the formation of Icon Plumbing and the departure of key personnel from Riva Plumbing.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants competed unlawfully, misused confidential information, or caused any compensable loss.

The counterclaim for unpaid bonuses by Mike Ladisa and Joseph Ferrari was allowed, with damages awarded in the agreed amount plus interest.

The applicant, William Malamas, sought leave to commence an application for judicial review of decisions by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Malamas had not satisfied the requirements under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act for leave to proceed as a vexatious litigant.

The court held that the proposed proceeding was an abuse of process and lacked reasonable grounds, as it was intrinsically linked to prior litigation that led to the vexatious litigant order.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, The Estate of Brajak James, repeatedly failed to articulate a justiciable issue in its requisition forms, despite multiple opportunities and judicial guidance.

The court found the claims to be unintelligible, lacking legal merit, and in some cases nonsensical or based on irrelevant religious texts.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The court dismissed Dana Proctor’s action against Penske Truck Leasing as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, arising from a truck rental dispute, included wide-ranging and implausible allegations and relief, including conspiracy, electronic harassment, and requests for judicial review of Alberta court decisions.

The court found the action lacked legal merit, repeated issues from prior proceedings, and was marred by irrelevant and repetitive content.

The decision concerns two motions to oppose the confirmation of a report of Associate Justice Robinson regarding construction lien and contract claims arising from a Toronto hospital project.

The court confirms the report, finding no error in the associate judge’s analysis of whether Kelson had a direct contract with Sjostrom, the effect of a change order on Amar’s scope of work, and the sufficiency of evidence for claimed damages.

The court upholds the associate judge’s findings that Kelson breached its contract with Amar but that Sjostrom failed to prove its damages, and dismisses both motions.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff’s action as frivolous and vexatious.

The registrar referred the matter to the judge following a request from the defendant’s counsel.

The court reviewed the statement of claim and found it may be frivolous and vexatious, but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to make submissions before dismissal.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing, and the registrar was directed to provide notice and restrict further filings except for the plaintiff’s submissions.

The court dismissed the appeal by RatesDotCa Group Ltd. (formerly Kanetix Ltd.) from a decision denying leave to further amend its statement of claim to plead that Trader Corporation breached its duty of good faith and honest performance in contractual dealings.

The court found that the proposed amendments raised a new cause of action and a new remedy, both of which were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also found no error in the associate judge’s application of the law regarding discoverability and the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court considered costs following a trial in which the plaintiff, Domenic Gesualdi, succeeded in proving breach of contract and negligence against the defendants regarding the rebuilding of two vintage Ferrari engines.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiff at $300,000 and to the third parties at $279,950.91, rejecting the defendants’ arguments for costs in their favour and their attempt to shift third party costs to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the principles for fixing costs, including proportionality, reasonableness, and the impact of settlement offers.

On a pre-trial severance application, one accused sought a separate jury trial from a co-accused arising out of a fatal restaurant shooting captured on surveillance video.

The moving party argued antagonistic self-defence positions, lack of nexus between counts, general prejudice, and impairment of full answer and defence because the co-accused would not be compellable on a joint indictment.

Applying the co-accused severance factors and the two-step inquiry for severance sought to compel a co-accused witness, the court held there was no evidentiary foundation showing a reasonable possibility that the proposed testimony would affect the verdict favourably.

Because the evidence against both accused was virtually identical, a joint trial better served truth-seeking, efficiency, and witness interests, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2707, applied to enforce an arbitration award and subsequent cost order against the respondents under section 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The underlying dispute concerned arrears in contributions for shared facilities at a residential condominium.

The respondents did not appeal or challenge the arbitral awards, and the court found that none of the statutory exceptions to enforcement under subsection 50(3) were present.

Consequently, the court granted the application to enforce the awards and ordered the respondents to pay partial indemnity costs of $11,986.51.

The court found that the defendants breached their contract and were negligent in the restoration of the plaintiff's vintage Ferrari engines, resulting in significant damages.

The court dismissed the third party claim and awarded damages to the plaintiff for the cost of repairs, but denied claims for loss of capital value and other consequential damages.

The court dismissed Steven Howell’s defamation action against Tracy Cullen, Manager of Licensing at the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO), as frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that Ms. Cullen was protected by statutory immunity for actions taken in good faith within the scope of her employment, and that Mr. Howell’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also fixed costs against Mr. Howell in the amount of $15,000.

The court dismissed Mijanur Rahman's application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application sought orders reinstating and renewing various financial licenses and waiving renewal costs, but the court found that such relief was not available by application to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court held that the application lacked legal merit, was not properly brought under the cited rules or statutes, and would inevitably fail.

The decision clarifies the robust application of Rule 2.1 to prevent clearly unmeritorious proceedings from consuming judicial resources.

The applicants, all lawyers previously retained by Jenny Tran, sought an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act declaring Ms. Tran a vexatious litigant.

The court reviewed Ms. Tran’s extensive litigation history, including repeated and meritless proceedings, appeals, and actions against former counsel and judicial officers.

The court found that Ms. Tran displayed all hallmarks of a vexatious litigant and granted the application, prohibiting her from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.

The court also fixed costs against Ms. Tran.

This decision addresses summary judgment motions by the Crown defendants and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action brought by M.V. following her acquittal on extortion charges.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing M.V.'s claims for false arrest and Charter breaches as statute-barred, but allowed her claims for negligent investigation and negligence to proceed to trial, finding the limitation period for those claims began only upon her acquittal.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the existence of reasonable and probable grounds could be determined on the record, holding that the defendants had not met their burden on summary judgment.