Robert N. Beaudoin

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff sought damages for mental stress due to a breach of an agreement of purchase and sale, alleging the defendant, a lawyer for the prospective purchaser, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (vendor).

The court found no duty of care existed between the purchaser's lawyer and the vendor.

The action was deemed frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, leading the court to initiate the Rule 2.1 dismissal procedure, stay the action, and direct the Registrar to issue notice and restrict further filings.

The applicant sought a consent order and dismissal of an application without costs, following a mediation and minutes of settlement.

The motion record included a draft order with unusual provisions, such as fund transfers, property charges, life insurance beneficiary designation, and return of items.

The court noted the involvement of the Public Guardian and Trustee and the application being brought under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, suggesting the respondent might be a party under disability.

The initial motion record was deemed incomplete, lacking necessary information and relying on unsworn correspondence.

The court declined to grant the order and instructed counsel to prepare an amended motion record and arrange an in-court hearing for further clarification.

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for three minor plaintiffs and the associated contingency fee agreement.

The court approved the settlement amounts for the minors, finding them reasonable for Family Law Act claims.

However, the contingency fee agreement was not approved due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act, specifically because it included costs in the fee calculation, rendering it void and unenforceable.

The court directed that legal fees be paid entirely from the adult plaintiffs' portion of the settlement and that the minor plaintiffs' funds be paid into court due to lack of appointed guardians for property and insufficient particulars for proposed Registered Education Savings Plans.

The applicant, a minor by his litigation guardian, sought court approval for a $1,450,000 accident benefits settlement with Intact Insurance, a structured settlement, and solicitor-client fees of $293,800, along with a contingency fee agreement.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable but found the contingency fee agreement non-compliant with regulations and reduced the solicitor-client fees to $145,000 plus HST, citing numerous errors and inconsistencies in counsel's filings and time dockets.

The plaintiff, Podogaetam Holdings Inc., brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendants, Stephane Langlois and Pierre Charron.

The plaintiff sought a finding that Langlois breached his contract, and initially that Charron was negligent and breached fiduciary duties.

At the outset, the plaintiff withdrew the negligence claim against Charron and acknowledged Langlois was not disputing the breach of contract claim, leading to judgment against Langlois on that basis only.

All claims against Christian Pilon were dismissed by agreement.

The core of the motion proceeded on the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Charron.

The court dismissed the motion for partial summary judgment, finding genuine issues of credibility and conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances of the loan, the plaintiff's reliance on Charron, and the plaintiff's acknowledgment of risks and waiver of independent legal advice.

The court also noted that the issue of fiduciary duty could not be readily bifurcated from other negligence claims, making partial summary judgment inappropriate and risking inconsistent findings.

This decision addresses two applications for certiorari brought by the Crown, RCMP, and Ottawa Police Services to quash lower court rulings that ordered the disclosure of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) rolling logs in drug-impaired driving cases.

The Superior Court considered the impact of recent amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-46) on the relevance and disclosability of these logs, particularly in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Stipo.

The court found that the Code amendments constituted a significant change in circumstances, but ultimately concluded that the amendments do not alter the requirement for disclosure of rolling logs where the DRE's opinion is not corroborated by toxicological results.

However, where toxicological analysis does corroborate the DRE's call, the rolling log is no longer relevant to challenge the DRE's opinion.

The court indicated it would quash the disclosure orders in the specific cases at hand because the DRE calls were corroborated by toxicology, but declined to issue a mandamus order.

The Third Party, a municipality, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a Third Party Claim brought by the Defendant general contractor.

The claim arose from a municipal infrastructure project where a provisional item was deleted from the contract.

The parties had previously entered into a Global Settlement Agreement to resolve all outstanding claims.

The court found that the summary judgment process was appropriate as there were no credibility issues requiring a trial.

The court interpreted the Global Settlement Agreement and concluded that the specific claim was subsumed within the settlement, barring the Defendant from asserting further claims.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The parties, parents of three daughters, sought resolution on child support overpayments, special and extraordinary expenses (s. 7 expenses), and summer access.

The court found the applicant's s. 7 expense claims reasonable but accepted the respondent's revised calculation of child support overpayment, resulting in a net amount owed to the respondent.

The respondent's request for increased summer access was denied.

The respondent father sought costs following a motion for increased interim access and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court had granted increased access on modified terms and declined the OCL request.

The father claimed success and sought $3000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle.

The applicant mother argued that success was divided and no costs should be awarded.

The court found that success was indeed divided and declined to make any order as to costs.

The Crown brought an application seeking a finding of civil contempt against the CBC and Post Media for allegedly breaching publication bans issued in a criminal proceeding.

The media outlets had published articles about related family court proceedings which the Crown argued, when read with prior reporting, could identify the victims (the 'mosaic effect').

The Superior Court found it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application and that proceeding by application was appropriate.

However, the court dismissed the contempt application, finding that the publication ban was not sufficiently clear due to a confusing warning issued in the family court proceedings.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief, finding it would have no practical utility.

The court addressed submissions regarding the anonymization of its decision and the inclusion of a warning, in light of existing publication bans from underlying criminal and family court proceedings.

The Crown sought to protect victim identities through initialization and a substantial warning.

Post Media agreed to initials, while CBC opposed anonymization, citing the open court principle and lack of evidence for harm.

The court ultimately decided to initialize the principal parties in its decision and attach a modified warning to comply with publication bans while upholding the open court principle.

The applicant commenced an application in the Superior Court seeking to declare previous Small Claims Court and Divisional Court decisions against her as nullities, alleging fraud.

The respondent submitted a requisition under Rule 2.1 to dismiss the application.

The court found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues that had already been finally decided and for which she had exhausted all appeals.

The court dismissed the application under Rule 2.1 as a collateral attack, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendants submitted a requisition to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff claimed defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from a television broadcast about mental health, seeking $11.1 million and a public broadcast of her own.

The court found the statement of claim lacked material facts, failed to identify how the plaintiff was harmed or named in the broadcast, and was an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The defendant police board brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and breaches of ss. 7 and 8 Charter rights, stemming from his 2004 arrest and charges.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing issue estoppel based on a prior criminal ruling that excluded evidence due to a s. 8 Charter breach.

The court found that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and charges at the time, despite the subsequent exclusion of evidence in criminal proceedings.

It determined that the prior Charter remedy (exclusion of evidence and dismissal of charges) was sufficient and no further monetary damages were appropriate, especially given the plaintiff likely committed the offences.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as statute-barred, arguing the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched.

B, began when the minor plaintiff's father, Nizam Siddiqui, sent a notice letter holding himself out as litigation guardian.

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment, contending the limitation period did not run until a formal litigation guardian affidavit was filed or a proceeding commenced.

The court, applying statutory interpretation principles and considering the historical protection of minors, held that merely sending a notice letter was insufficient to trigger the limitation period under s. 6(b) of the Act.

The term "litigation guardian" is a term of art requiring formal appointment or commencement of a proceeding under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' request for partial summary judgment was granted.

The court heard two motions concerning interim custody, access, child support arrears, and other family law issues.

The Applicant sought an interim access schedule, interim custodial decision-making, police enforcement for access, dietary requirements for children, child support arrears of $980,000, ongoing child support, security for costs, and fixing questioning.

The Respondent sought joint custody, a specific care calendar, no school changes without consent, communication freedom for children, a declaration of the separation agreement's validity, refund of legal costs, and full indemnity costs.

The court found that neither party was successful on the major issues, concluding that success was evenly divided.

Both parties made unreasonable demands or proposals.

The court declined to make any order for costs, noting that nothing significant was accomplished beyond the expenditure of large legal fees, and encouraged the parties to prepare for trial.

The defendants, including Justin Trudeau and Benjamin Netanyahu, brought a motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action initiated by the plaintiff, "Bride ov Christ" (represented by Lizi Peter), as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's claim, naming 817 defendants, alleged "conspiracy of silence, intentional infliction of mental suffering and ostracism" preventing recovery from trauma-related identity disorder and a gastro-intestinal condition, seeking over $160 million in damages.

The court found the pleading to be a clear example of querulous litigant behavior, noting the absence of recognized torts for "conspiracy of silence" or "ostraciism" and a lack of material facts to support the claim of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

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 Crown brought a motion to compel undertakings from "paper trail" affiants of the respondent media corporations during cross-examinations related to an upcoming civil contempt application.

The respondents argued that cross-examinations are narrower than discoveries, affiants are fact witnesses, and the requested inquiries were irrelevant or potentially incriminating.

The court found the questions regarding the authors' knowledge of publication bans and the CBC's system for tracking such bans to be relevant.

It ordered the affiants to make the requested inquiries, noting that the information appeared readily available and not unduly onerous to obtain.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim and the dismissal of the defendant Kealey's motion to strike.

The plaintiff sought costs, arguing the motions were necessary due to the defendant's refusal to consent to amendments and that she had made a without-costs settlement offer.

The court found the plaintiff was the successful party and that her motion to amend was necessary.

The defendant Kealey was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, fixed at $7,500.