Samantha Vienna Bonanno

The plaintiffs sued the Halton Police Board and individual officers for tort damages arising from an alleged trespass and police assault in Fall 2021.

The court heard multiple motions: (1) to amend the statement of claim to substitute and add defendants; (2) to examine a non-party for discovery; and (3) to discontinue a counterclaim.

The court granted leave to substitute Officer Bowes for Officer John Doe #2, Officer Pinkney for Officer John Doe #1, and Sara Nielsen for Jane Doe.

The court dismissed the motion to add Officers Proulx, Forde, Blanchard, and Vander Heyden as defendants due to expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion to examine Ekaterina Latour for discovery due to improper service and lack of relevance.

The court permitted discontinuance of Michael Krog's counterclaim and awarded costs against him.

The court also awarded costs to the Police defendants against the plaintiffs for the unsuccessful motion to add defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for negligence and misfeasance in public office against the police defendants for failing to recover property allegedly stolen by a family member.

The court found that the police did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs, as they were not suspects or a narrow group of potential victims of a specific threat.

Furthermore, there was no evidence of bad faith or unlawful conduct to support a claim of misfeasance in public office.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs appealed case conference orders directing that the defendants' liability be determined by summary judgment motions involving viva voce cross-examination of five expert witnesses.

The Divisional Court held that while a case conference judge has jurisdiction to make orders involving powers under Rule 20.04, such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly.

The court found the case conference judge erred in principle by making the orders without an evidentiary record and by inverting the proper analysis.

The appeal was allowed, the orders were set aside, and the liability case against the Eaton Centre defendants was directed to proceed to trial.

The defendants submitted written requests to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the statement of claim to be incomprehensible, indefensible, and incapable of a coherent response.

The court concluded that the claim was frivolous and an abuse of process on its face, and dismissed the action.

The defendants requested an urgent case management conference because the self-represented plaintiffs failed to comply with a previously ordered timetable for Master's motions and sought broader relief than initially identified.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay, which was due to an internet issue.

To ensure all motions could be heard together, the court vacated the previously scheduled dates, granted the plaintiffs time to seek legal advice, and established a revised timetable for the pending Master's motions.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police defendants after criminal charges against him were stayed by the Crown.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the stay was entered.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until the one-year period for the Crown to recommence the stayed charges had expired.

The court held that a Crown stay constitutes a favourable termination of proceedings and the limitation clock begins to run on the day the stay is entered.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

At the sixth case management conference, the court addressed the scheduling of various motions proposed by the parties, including motions for summary judgment, undertakings, and further examinations.

The court granted a motion on consent to allow a plaintiff who had reached the age of majority to continue the action in her own capacity.

The court directed that the motions regarding undertakings and refusals be heard by the Case Management Master before any summary judgment motions are scheduled, emphasizing the need for effective case management.

This fifth case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters, including the rescheduling of examinations for discovery after the plaintiffs failed to attend, the completion of mandatory mediation, the transition of a minor plaintiff to an adult plaintiff requiring an order to continue, and the status of demands for particulars and freedom of information requests.

It also sets out directions for potential summary judgment motions and schedules the next case management conference.

The plaintiff, an identical twin, was arrested and charged with armed robbery after his brother committed the offence.

The plaintiff sued the arresting officers and the police services board for Charter violations, false arrest, excessive force, and negligent investigation.

The court dismissed most claims, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff given his identical appearance to the suspect and the dynamic circumstances.

However, the court found the police were negligent in their investigation by failing to properly investigate, account for, and document a stolen ring seized from the plaintiff's brother at booking.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,000 in general damages for the stress and stigma of remaining under the robbery charges longer than necessary.

At a fourth case management conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural issues in an action involving self-represented plaintiffs.

The court directed that future examinations for discovery proceed orally rather than by written interrogatory due to complications.

The court declined to waive mandatory mediation and deferred the plaintiffs' request to schedule a summary judgment motion until they could properly frame it in accordance with the principles of partial summary judgment.

Various other procedural directions were made, including delegating certain discovery motions to a Case Management Master.

The defendants were successful on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action and sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing the evidentiary record on the motion was incomplete and the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding the evidentiary record, noting the plaintiff was represented by counsel and chose not to file responding evidence.

The court found the defendants' claimed costs of $44,644.28 to be reasonable, proportionate, and within the range the plaintiff would reasonably expect to pay.

Costs were fixed in that amount.

The plaintiff, a criminal defence lawyer, sued the Halton Regional Police Service and several police officers for negligence after he was shot by a man who was under police surveillance.

The police defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing they did not owe the plaintiff a private law duty of care.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, finding no special relationship of proximity existed between the police and the plaintiff that would give rise to such a duty.

The court emphasized that police duties are generally owed to the public as a whole, and the circumstances did not establish the plaintiff as part of a "narrow and distinct group of potential victims at risk from a specific threat" before the shooting.

The plaintiffs, who are suing for wrongful arrest based on mistaken identity, brought a motion to compel the defendant Toronto Police Services Board to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents and comply with previous production orders under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' Affidavit of Documents failed to properly list and describe the documents for which privilege was claimed.

The court ordered the defendants to deliver a further and better affidavit within 30 days, after which compliance with the production orders could be assessed.

The Plaintiff, Esau Max Wynter Jr., sought costs following a successful 8-day trial where he was awarded $53,231.00 plus prejudgment interest for excessive force used by the Defendants during a search warrant execution.

The Plaintiff requested $117,650 plus HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.

The Defendants proposed $25,000 plus disbursements, arguing the case should have been under Simplified Procedure and costs were disproportionate.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found the action was complex and not suitable for Simplified Procedure, noting the Defendants made no settlement offer.

The court fixed costs at $100,000 plus HST and $14,988.85 in disbursements, payable by the Defendants.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his action for delay, nearly four years after the dismissal.

The court applied the established principles for setting aside such orders, requiring a reasonable explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness in bringing the motion, and rebuttal of prejudice.

The court found no reasonable explanation for the delay, no evidence of inadvertence by the former lawyer, and significant prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of nearly a decade since the incident, impacting witness recollection and the ability to defend.

While the motion was brought promptly after the plaintiff's new counsel discovered the dismissal, the overall delay and resulting prejudice outweighed the plaintiff's plea for indulgence, upholding the principle of finality.

The motion was dismissed.

This costs endorsement followed a successful status hearing motion by the plaintiffs and a partially successful cross-motion by the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs for the status hearing, citing the defendants' litigation conduct.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs for the status hearing, finding no basis for substantial indemnity as the criticized conduct related to the general litigation, not the specific motion.

For the cross-motion, where success was divided, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs sought a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to allow their action to proceed despite a five-year delay and requested a timetable.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal due to non-compensable prejudice from a key witness's death and alleged spoliation of evidence.

The court found the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, which was largely attributable to interlocutory proceedings and the defendants' actions.

The court also determined that any prejudice from the witness's death or evidence destruction did not arise from the delay necessitating the status hearing and was not so extensive as to prevent a fair trial.

The defendants' cross-motion to strike parts of a reply affidavit was granted in part.

The main motion to allow the action to proceed was granted, and a timetable was imposed.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the police for damages arising from injuries sustained during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment.

The police utilized a dynamic entry to secure the premises, suspecting firearms were present.

The court found that the officers used excessive force when they struck the sleeping plaintiff in the face and repeatedly hit him while he was pinned to the floor.

The plaintiff was awarded $50,000 in general damages for physical and psychological injuries, and $3,231 in special damages, but claims for punitive and aggravated damages were dismissed.