Robert Smith

The defendants, a children's aid society and its employees, moved to strike the self-represented plaintiffs' claims arising from a child protection investigation.

The court struck the parents' claims for intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter damages with leave to amend, finding the pleadings lacked necessary material facts.

The negligence claims were struck without leave to amend because a children's aid society does not owe a duty of care to parents.

The court also granted a sealing order to protect the privacy interests of the children involved.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently issued a building permit in 1981 without conservation authority approval, leading to foundation failure in 2017.

The court found the claim was discovered objectively by 2013 when the plaintiff obtained an engineering report identifying unsuitable fill, and that the 15-year ultimate limitation period had also expired.

The court rejected arguments that the limitation period was tolled by a municipal claims process or by fraudulent concealment, granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.

The plaintiff sued for damages, claiming an equitable life estate or option to purchase a residential property based on an unwritten agreement.

The plaintiff had originally owned the property but lost it to foreclosure, after which he remained as a tenant under successive owners.

The court found the plaintiff's claims to be entirely fabricated and contradicted by documentary evidence, including a lease in which he explicitly released all claims to the property.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment, arguing they were never served with the statement of claim.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to appear for the motion despite multiple adjournments and personal service on the plaintiff.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the procedural irregularities and prejudice to the defendants warranted setting aside the default judgment, allowing the action to proceed on its merits.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.