Robin Anthony Fred Squires

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the plaintiff's action and a subsequent motion to restore it to the trial list.

The defendants sought fees and disbursements.

The court applied Rule 57 criteria, noting the serious allegations made by the plaintiff, numerous delays caused by the plaintiff's handling of the case, and the plaintiff's rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The court found the defendants' requested costs reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay specific amounts to the Bank of Montreal and York Regional Police, in addition to previously awarded motion costs.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a largely successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $26,687.94 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, M.W., argued for a significant reduction to $8,807.02, citing modest means and the defendants' partial, rather than complete, success.

The court acknowledged the plaintiff's arguments but found the proposed reduction too substantial.

Considering the defendants' "large part" success on the summary judgment motion, the volume of materials filed, and a comparative case, the court exercised its discretion to award the defendants $25,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs.

The defendants, Halton Regional Police Services Board and Constable Ross Amore, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff M.W.'s action for damages.

M.W. alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious breach of public duty, malicious prosecution, misfeasance of public office, and Charter rights violations stemming from two police investigations in 2015 and 2016.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing all claims related to the March 23, 2016 arrest for assault, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether M.W. was detained and his Charter rights violated during questioning on February 19, 2015, allowing that specific claim to proceed.

The plaintiffs, ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. and IWK (Thailand) Ltd., brought a motion to temporarily stay their action against Chubb Insurance Company of Canada.

The action concerned insurance coverage for damaged medical packaging equipment shipped from Thailand to India.

The plaintiffs sought the stay pending the final resolution of related arbitral proceedings in India, arguing that the issues were intertwined and a stay would prevent prejudice and promote efficiency.

Chubb opposed the stay, asserting it had no standing in the Indian arbitration, that the plaintiffs had suffered no insurable loss under the policy (which only covered ocean carriage to Chennai, not inland transit), and that the action was a placeholder.

The court refused the stay, finding that the interpretation of the Chubb policy was irrelevant to the Indian arbitration, that there was no certainty of the arbitration proceeding, and that delaying Chubb's opportunity to seek summary judgment would cause prejudice.

The court emphasized the principles of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability in civil litigation, as articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court approved a $2.1 billion class action settlement for Canadian owners and lessees of VW 2.0-litre diesel vehicles affected by the "defeat device" fraud.

The settlement provides cash payments and options for vehicle buyback or emissions modification, with the buyback option generally offering a larger recovery.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, exceeding what members would likely recover under provincial consumer protection legislation or tort law.

The plaintiff brought a civil action seeking damages for negligent police investigation and malicious prosecution following his arrest for criminal harassment and breach of probation.

Although he had been acquitted of the criminal charges, he alleged that police officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that family members knowingly provided false information leading to the charges.

The court held that the police investigation met the applicable standard of care and that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge the plaintiff.

The evidence did not establish malice by the police or that the family members initiated or continued the prosecution through false information.

The plaintiff also failed to prove damages through medical or other evidence.