Samaneh Frounchi

The court considered a motion by the Attorney General of Canada to strike the plaintiff’s action, which alleged negligence in the administration of pilot medical certification.

The plaintiff, a commercial pilot, had his medical certificate refused due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, but was later found fit and granted an unrestricted certificate after a successful appeal.

The court found that the regulatory regime’s purpose is public safety, not the protection of individual economic interests, and that no private law duty of care is owed by Transport Canada to pilots in these circumstances.

The action was struck in its entirety.

The applicant, a dangerous offender serving an indeterminate sentence, brought a habeas corpus application alleging that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) failed to provide him with sufficient rehabilitation opportunities, thereby violating his liberty by depriving him of the chance to obtain a lower security level or parole.

He sought unconditional release or, alternatively, transfer to a minimum-security institution.

The court dismissed the application, finding that many of the applicant's arguments challenged the Parole Board's decisions, which fall within its exclusive jurisdiction.

Furthermore, even if CSC programming issues were outside the Parole Board's jurisdiction, the applicant failed to demonstrate a deprivation of residual liberty, as merely losing an opportunity for greater liberty or a transfer to a less restrictive environment does not constitute such a deprivation for habeas corpus purposes.

The court concluded there was no basis to find his detention unlawful.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for default judgment against the corporate tenant and its president, as personal indemnifier, after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises and defaulted on rent and arrears payments.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff was entitled to damages for rent arrears, accelerated rent, and lost future rent, without reduction for failure to mitigate, as the plaintiff's efforts to re-lease the premises were reasonable.

The court also awarded pre-judgment interest and full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, including opposing counsel, a medical expert, and an insurer from a previous personal injury action, alleging they conspired to suppress a defence medical report.

The defendants brought motions to strike the conspiracy claims under Rule 21 and to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The court granted the motions to strike, finding that non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding medical reports does not constitute an unlawful act for the purposes of civil conspiracy.

The court also ordered the removal of the plaintiff's counsel, as a lawyer from the firm was likely to be called as a witness regarding the remaining misrepresentation claim.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, alleging no reasonable cause of action, reliance on false documents, and abuse of process.

The defendant also sought various ancillary orders, including declarations regarding financial obligations and property charges, credit rating restoration, and sealing of court files.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim adequately pled material facts for its claims based on a mortgage and unpaid credit card bills.

The court determined that the defendant's arguments related to the merits of the plaintiff's claim rather than the adequacy of the pleading itself, which is the focus of a Rule 25.11 motion.

The court noted several substantive issues raised by the defendant that might warrant a trial on the merits.

Costs were reserved.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, which the plaintiff consented to, leaving only the issue of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's lack of response to communications and failure to comply with prior court orders.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs, claiming the fees were excessive and that her inaction amounted to abandonment.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded partial indemnity, reducing the claimed hours for motion preparation.