Safina Lakhani

The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the defendant in Belgium and subsequently sought to enforce it in Ontario after discovering the defendant had moved to Canada.

After the plaintiffs obtained summary judgment recognizing the foreign judgment, the defendant appealed, triggering an automatic stay of enforcement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to lift the stay and for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal partially lifted the stay to allow the plaintiffs to examine the defendant in aid of execution, finding the appeal appeared frivolous and the plaintiffs had suffered hardship due to delay.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as there was insufficient evidence that the defendant lacked assets in Ontario.

The appellant, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, appealed a Divisional Court order requiring it to produce a comprehensive record of proceedings under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (JRPA) after screening out the respondent's police complaints.

The Court of Appeal held that the Director's decision to screen out a complaint under the Police Services Act is the exercise of a statutory power of decision, as it decides a complainant's legal right to have their complaint pursued.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Divisional Court's order regarding the contents of the record was overly broad, and substituted a narrower requirement for the record of proceedings.

Following a motion in a civil action involving a minor plaintiff, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although there had been some division of success on the underlying motion, the court found that the plaintiff had been substantially more successful overall.

Exercising its discretion on costs, the court fixed the amount payable rather than requiring further submissions.

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion in a fixed sum inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25(11)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike several paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging prior misconduct and knowledge of risk relating to an alleged assault against a minor in a hotel room, or alternatively sought particulars under Rule 25.10.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled at the pleading stage to make allegations relevant to negligence and vicarious liability, particularly where the defendants would possess the relevant knowledge regarding prior conduct.

The court declined to strike most of the impugned pleadings but found that certain paragraphs were duplicative or improperly framed as submissions rather than allegations.

The court struck limited portions of the pleading while otherwise allowing the claim to proceed.

The applicant filed complaints against the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Independent Police Review Director (IPRD) refused to deal with the complaints under s. 60 of the Police Services Act.

The applicant sought judicial review and moved to compel the IPRD to deliver a record of proceedings.

The motion judge ordered the IPRD to file the record.

The IPRD applied to a full panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the order, arguing it was not exercising a statutory power of decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the IPRD's decision under s. 60 affects the complainant's rights and constitutes a statutory power of decision within the meaning of s. 10 of the Judicial Review Procedures Act, thereby requiring the IPRD to file a record of proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion for an order compelling the Independent Police Review Director to file a record of proceedings in an application for judicial review.

The respondent argued it had no obligation to provide a record because its decision to screen out the applicant's complaint was not a statutory power of decision.

The Divisional Court held that the statutory scheme of the Police Services Act creates a right for the public to complain and a duty on the Director to deal with the complaint unless specific criteria apply.

Therefore, the decision to screen out a complaint constitutes a statutory power of decision, and the motion to compel the filing of the record was granted.