Roopa Mann

The appellant, Trillium Power Wind Corporation, appealed the dismissal of its claims for misfeasance in public office and spoliation against the Ontario government.

The claims arose from the abrupt cancellation of offshore wind power projects and the subsequent destruction of government documents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the misfeasance claim, finding no evidence that the moratorium announcement was timed to injure the appellant or that the appellant suffered damages.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the spoliation claim, finding that the deliberate destruction of relevant government documents, even under a general policy, constituted spoliation and an abuse of process.

Despite this, no damages were awarded for spoliation as the appellant could not prove it suffered any, but the appellant was granted costs of the appeal and Ontario was deprived of its costs below.

The plaintiff's action regarding a cancelled wind power project was dismissed after a 10-year litigation.

The successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle for $78,000 which the plaintiff had rejected.

The court applied Rule 49 and awarded substantial indemnity costs, but exercised its discretion to reduce the requested fees by nearly half due to the plaintiff's misfortune in dealing with the government's policy reversals.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $300,000 in fees and $457,486.89 in disbursements.

The plaintiff sued the provincial government after a moratorium on offshore wind projects was announced on the exact day the plaintiff's project financing was set to close.

The plaintiff alleged the government intentionally timed the announcement to deprive it of litigation resources, and further claimed spoliation of evidence due to the government's deletion of senior staff emails.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no evidence the government knew of the financing timing and concluding the email destruction, while improper, was a routine practice not aimed at this specific litigation.

The appellant, Cary Beazley, appealed the dismissal of his 2018 action against Canada and Ontario.

This 2018 action raised substantially the same issues and pleadings as a previous 2017 action, which had been dismissed for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and whose dismissal was upheld on appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the 2018 action on the grounds of *res judicata* and abuse of process, finding the pleadings substantially identical and that the claim could not possibly succeed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, agreeing that the claim was abusive and that the motion judge properly exercised discretion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the claim without requesting submissions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants, a police detective and the Crown, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, alleged that the detective lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for domestic violence offences and relied on unreliable complainants.

The court found that the detective conducted a comprehensive investigation, consulted with supervisors and the Crown, and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The parties settled this litigation, and the defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the claim without costs.

The court granted the order, dismissing the action on a without costs basis, noting that the reasons for decision were deemed an operative and enforceable order due to the Covid-19 emergency.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order granting the defendants' motion for security for costs in an action for negligent investigation, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred in granting leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial and in ordering security for costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's decision to grant leave or in the conclusion that the defendants had a good defence on the merits and the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a costs award.