Samantha Shelton Campbell

The court dismissed a motion by Ottawa Police Services and Keith Patrick to strike Tanya Locke’s claim for misfeasance in public office.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and was an abuse of process due to a prior dismissed action.

The court found the claim could fall within the exception in section 16 of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the plaintiff had pleaded the elements of misfeasance in public office.

The court held the claim was not statute-barred, disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and was not an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a former unionized employee, commenced a civil action against her former employer for wrongful termination and discrimination, after her grievance was withdrawn by the union and her Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) application was dismissed.

The defendant employer brought a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and as being frivolous or vexatious.

The court granted the motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the collective agreement and the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and that the human rights claims did not create a separate cause of action.

The court also found the action to be frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff, Neda Raji, brought an action seeking damages for false arrest, detention, abuse of process, harassment, and malicious prosecution against the Attorney General of Canada, the City of Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Services Board, nine police officers (collectively "OPS defendants"), and Stephen Leach (Independent Police Review Director).

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike out the statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The Attorney General of Canada and Mr. Leach moved under r. 21.01(1)(b) for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, while the OPS defendants sought dismissal/stay under r. 21.01(3)(d) for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, or striking under r. 25.11(b) or (c).

The court found no reasonable cause of action against the Attorney General of Canada as the claims did not involve federal jurisdiction or Crown servants.

The claim against Mr. Leach was struck due to statutory immunity under the Police Services Act, as no bad faith was pleaded.

The action against the OPS defendants was dismissed as an abuse of process (attempting to re-litigate criminal matters), frivolous (lacking legal merit, incoherent pleading), and scandalous (bare allegations of conspiracy, perjury, assault, fabrication).

Leave to amend the claim was denied due to the fundamental deficiencies and the unlikelihood of a credible lawsuit emerging.

The action was dismissed in its entirety against all defendants.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion regarding the respondent's legal capacity to bring an action and the adjournment of their motion concerning abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the capacity issue, finding no error in the motion judge's determination that it was not plain and obvious the respondent lacked capacity.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the abuse of process issue, concluding that the motion judge erred by adjourning the matter sine die despite making findings that indicated an abuse of process.

The Court found the 'Milton Action' to be vexatious and an abuse of process, as it replicated a prior 'Toronto Action' without viable explanation, leading to unnecessary delay and expense.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the 'Milton Action'.