Robert L. Love

The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against a police officer and the police services board for disclosing his criminal record to his employer, which allegedly caused his termination.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until the defendants acknowledged the disclosure was wrongful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the two-year limitation period began when the plaintiff learned of the disclosure and his resulting loss, regardless of whether he knew the defendants were legally liable.

The applicant brought a motion within an application for judicial review seeking an order to use only his initials.

Notice of the motion was not given to the media.

The court held that whenever a party seeks to restrict access to a court proceeding, including by requesting permission to use a pseudonym or initials, there is a presumption that notice must be given to the media.

The motion was adjourned to allow the applicant to provide such notice.

In a personal injury action arising from a multi‑vehicle rear‑end collision, third parties sought summary judgment dismissing the third‑party claim and cross‑claims against them.

The moving parties argued that the rear‑ending driver’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and relied on the so‑called “clear line” doctrine to argue their conduct could not have contributed to the collision.

The defendants and another third party argued that the driver who stopped in a live lane of traffic may have breached duties under the Highway Traffic Act and that factual disputes existed regarding traffic conditions, visibility of hazard lights, and whether the vehicle was disabled.

Applying the modern summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that credibility disputes and complex issues of causation and negligence required a trial.

The court further noted that the “clear line” doctrine could not displace the modern “but for” causation analysis.

Following two motions relating to the costs consequences of a discontinued civil action, the court addressed competing costs claims between the parties.

The plaintiff had been successful on both motions, including opposing the defendant’s motion under Rule 23.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking costs following discontinuance and obtaining costs related to an appearance before an assessment officer.

The court considered the discretionary costs framework under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01, as well as the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04.

Although the plaintiff was the largely successful party, the court reduced the amount claimed to reflect partial success and concerns about proportionality.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount that the court considered fair and reasonable.

Following dismissal of a malicious prosecution action for delay and the subsequent dismissal of a motion to set aside the registrar’s order, the court addressed costs.

The responding police defendants sought partial indemnity costs and reduced their request due to the moving party’s limited financial means.

The moving party argued that costs should not be awarded on public policy and access to justice grounds, relying on authorities where unsuccessful litigants were spared costs to avoid discouraging public interest litigation.

The court distinguished those authorities because the action had not been adjudicated on its merits but had been dismissed for delay and failure to comply with procedural rules.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount payable within six months.

The defendant moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to pay costs following a notice of discontinuance, seeking an extension of time under Rule 23.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after failing to bring the motion within the 30‑day deadline.

The court applied the test requiring absence of prejudice and a reasonable explanation for delay.

While the plaintiff would not be prejudiced, the defendant deliberately chose an incorrect procedure by attempting to have costs assessed by an assessment officer rather than bringing a timely motion.

The court held that a mistaken strategic choice did not constitute a satisfactory explanation for delay.

The motion for an extension and costs was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded reduced partial indemnity costs relating to the assessment hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision upholding a master's order to strike paragraphs from his statement of claim.

The struck paragraphs referred to documents and information obtained during a public complaint process under the Police Services Act, which are deemed privileged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision.

Following a successful motion staying an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction arising from injuries sustained during an ATV excursion in Mexico, the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $85,000.

The court considered the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, access to justice, and the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful parties.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that a Rule 49 offer triggered presumptive costs consequences, finding the offer lacked meaningful compromise and amounted to an invitation to capitulate.

Given the relatively straightforward half‑day jurisdiction motion, the unsettled legal context before the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Van Breda, and the plaintiffs’ limited financial means, the court reduced the costs significantly.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff appealed a master's order striking portions of his statement of claim that referenced information and documents arising from a police public complaint investigation.

The defendants cross‑appealed the refusal to strike additional paragraphs and the decision not to award costs.

The court held that sections 83 and 95 of the Police Services Act render information and documents generated through the public complaints process privileged and inadmissible in civil proceedings.

The master correctly applied the statutory confidentiality provisions and relevant authority in striking the impugned allegations while allowing certain contextual paragraphs to remain.

Both the appeal and cross‑appeal were dismissed.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured during an ATV excursion while on vacation in Mexico.

She brought an action in Ontario against the operator of the excursion and the hotel where she was staying.

The hotel brought a motion to stay the action on the basis that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found that none of the presumptive connecting factors were present, specifically concluding that the hotel did not carry on business in Ontario either directly or through an agent.

The motion to stay the action was granted.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim in a civil action alleging intentional interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, and Charter damages arising from a police investigation that allegedly led to the plaintiff’s termination from employment.

The impugned paragraphs referred to information obtained through a public complaints investigation under the Police Services Act.

The court held that sections 83 and 95 of the Police Services Act create a statutory privilege rendering documents, statements, and information obtained during the complaints process inadmissible in civil proceedings.

Allegations based on such privileged material were therefore struck.

However, the court permitted allegations relating to the fact that a complaint was made and the reasons for it, as those facts were not protected by the statutory privilege and could be relevant to the pleaded claims.

Following jurisdictional motions that resulted in a stay of the action against several foreign defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs reflecting extensive counsel time for both preliminary litigation steps and the jurisdictional motions.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than matching the successful party’s actual expenditures.

The court reduced certain pre‑motion time allocations and adjusted hourly rates but allowed full time claimed for the jurisdictional motions due to their complexity and importance.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants in specified amounts inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The moving defendants sought a stay of an Ontario action arising from injuries allegedly sustained during a horseback riding excursion in Jamaica.

The plaintiffs did not attend the motion or file responding materials.

Applying the jurisdictional framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the foreign hotel and excursion operators lacked the necessary presumptive connecting factors to Ontario.

Although one defendant carried on business in Ontario, the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because the defendant had no involvement in the excursion where the injury occurred.

Alternatively, the court held that Jamaica was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding a limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to address the specific requirements of section 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, particularly section 5(1)(a)(iv).

The judgment below was set aside and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the lower court judge, awarding costs to the respondent fixed at $10,000.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to add a third party as a defendant in a snowmobile accident claim.

The Master had dismissed the motion due to case management delays and found the proposed claim untenable in law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by relying on an outdated timetable and by concluding the proposed pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff was granted leave to add the third party as a defendant.

The appellant valve manufacturer appealed from a Divisional Court order upholding partial refusal of summary judgment in a product liability action arising from a propane explosion and fire.

The Court of Appeal held that on a defendant's motion for summary judgment, the responding plaintiffs bore an evidentiary burden to show their negligent design and failure to warn claims were factually supported.

Applying the design defect framework, the court found no evidence identifying any defect in the valve or any safer economically feasible alternative design.

The failure to warn claim also failed because there was no evidence of an inherent danger known or knowable to the manufacturer.

The appeal was allowed and the claims against the manufacturer were dismissed in their entirety.