Sarah L. Jones

The plaintiff commenced an action against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), his former spouse, and her lawyer, seeking damages for alleged errors in enforcing child support arrears.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues regarding the accuracy of support arrears that had already been determined in multiple family law proceedings.

The court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the action as an abuse of process.

A university brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim alleging negligence, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of good faith arising from alleged deficiencies in a medical residency training program.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because discoverability and factual context had not yet been fully developed.

The court further held that although courts generally defer to universities on academic matters, contractual claims may proceed where the plaintiff alleges failure to meet express or implied contractual obligations.

However, several causes of action were insufficiently pleaded or legally unavailable in the context of academic discretion.

Portions of the claim were therefore struck, some with leave to amend and others without leave.

The applicant municipalities sought a declaration that their insurers had a duty to indemnify them for damages sought in two underlying actions relating to the expropriation of lands for a Toyota manufacturing plant.

The insurers argued the application was premature as the underlying actions involved substantial disputed facts and potential coverage exclusions, including whether the municipalities gained a personal profit or advantage, or if the claims were for restitution or statutory compensation.

The court dismissed the application, holding that unlike the duty to defend, the duty to indemnify must generally be determined after trial based on findings of fact, and the current record contained too many disputed facts to resolve the coverage issues prematurely.