Sarah L. G. Pottle

On a motion under s. 13 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the defendant sought temporary stays of numerous individual actions arising from the same alleged correctional-facility incident that underlay a proposed class proceeding.

The court applied the Hollinger prerequisites as a conjunctive test and held that stays should be granted for plaintiffs who consented or took no position, because there was substantial overlap, a common factual background, efficiency gains, and no evidence of prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motions as against the opposing plaintiffs, finding compelling evidence of litigation autonomy, ongoing physical and psychological harm, financial vulnerability, and prejudice from delay.

The court concluded that case management, rather than blanket stays, could address duplication concerns for the opposing actions.

Six organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal from an order dismissing the certification of a proposed class action regarding the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to the Anishinabek Nation, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, finding they would provide useful and unique perspectives on the issues raised on appeal.

The motions by the Hiawatha First Nation and Nigig Nibi Ki-win Gamik were dismissed because their proposed submissions would improperly expand the scope of the appeal and the evidentiary record.

In a proposed class proceeding arising from events at a correctional centre, the defendant moving party sought a publication ban over inmate names and identifying visual features appearing in court-filed images and video.

Applying the Sherman Estate framework governing limits on the open court principle, the court held that dissemination of detainees' identities and images while in states of undress posed a serious risk to the important public interest in personal privacy and dignity.

The court found the requested order necessary because no practical lesser alternative would adequately prevent the harm, and concluded the order was proportionate because it protected dignity while preserving public access to the broader circumstances of the events.

The motion was granted and no costs were ordered.

The defendant, Ontario, brought a motion to defer filing its statement of defence in a proposed class proceeding concerning the alleged maltreatment of inmates at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

Ontario argued that exceptional circumstances existed, including the need to await an appellate decision in a related criminal matter and to investigate recent amendments to the statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were not exceptional and that requiring the statement of defence would advance the litigation, frame the issues for certification, and serve the public interest in timely justice.

The plaintiff sued the Crown (Ontario) for false arrest and negligent investigation arising from her arrest by OPP Constable Morrison on December 2, 2017, following 911 calls from her husband reporting she had a knife and was threatening self-harm.

The plaintiff was charged with assault, assessed at a hospital, and released on a Promise to Appear.

Twenty days later, she entered into a Common Law Peace Bond with Crown consent, and the assault charge was withdrawn.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff based on the husband's account that she had punched him approximately 10 times.

The court also held that the Peace Bond disposition precluded the tort claims, as entering into a Peace Bond does not constitute a termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

This decision addresses summary judgment motions by the Crown defendants and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action brought by M.V. following her acquittal on extortion charges.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing M.V.'s claims for false arrest and Charter breaches as statute-barred, but allowed her claims for negligent investigation and negligence to proceed to trial, finding the limitation period for those claims began only upon her acquittal.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the existence of reasonable and probable grounds could be determined on the record, holding that the defendants had not met their burden on summary judgment.

This decision addresses motions for partial summary judgment brought by the Crown and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action by Keith and Marisa Hobbs.

The court considers whether the plaintiffs' claims are statute-barred by limitation periods, and whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the presence of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and prosecution.

The court grants partial summary judgment dismissing the false arrest and certain Charter claims as time-barred, but allows claims for negligent investigation, negligence, discrimination, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation to proceed to trial.

The appellant, a private career college operating a truck driving school, appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its registration and a Notice of Immediate Suspension issued by the Superintendent of Private Career Colleges.

The Superintendent alleged various safety and administrative contraventions, including improper instructor-to-student ratios, inadequate backing instruction space, and deficient record-keeping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had committed several administrative contraventions, the Superintendent failed to prove the more serious safety allegations, such as crediting out-of-ratio instruction hours or intentionally obstructing the investigation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant demonstrated a willingness to comply and had proposed reasonable solutions in its Action Plan.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to lift the suspension and renew the registration, subject to strict conditions including the appointment of a compliance monitor for six months.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's class action statement of claim, which alleged de facto expropriation by the Crown due to delays at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Crown argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was a nullity due to the plaintiff's failure to provide statutory notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and failed to specify the nature of relief claimed.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claim failed to plead the essential elements of de facto expropriation (no beneficial interest acquired by the Crown and no state action removing all reasonable uses of property).

The court also determined that the Crown could not be vicariously liable for the independent LTB's actions and that the proceeding was a nullity due to the plaintiff's admitted failure to provide the required 60-day notice to the Crown, rejecting the plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the notice requirement.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was denied as the defects were deemed incurable.

The defendants brought motions seeking to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, Julian Falconer and Falconers LLP, and for the production of portions of their file concerning advice given to plaintiff Bradley Blair regarding a complaint to the Ombudsman and a related judicial review application.

The defendants argued that counsel was a potential witness, an "unsworn witness" or had a conflict of interest based on a duty of loyalty, and that solicitor-client privilege had been waived.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no deemed waiver of privilege, no likelihood of counsel being a material witness, no "unsworn witness" concern given the nature of prior interactions, and no duty of loyalty conflict.

Donald Parker, a class member, appealed an order denying him an extension to opt out of a class proceeding.

He brought a motion seeking an extension of time to perfect his appeal and permission to include an affidavit from his counsel in the appeal book and compendium (ABC) regarding an unrecorded lower court hearing.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal and allowed the inclusion of the affidavit, finding it permissible under Rule 61.10(1)(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, while noting that the relevance of the affidavit would be determined by the appeal panel.

During a trial for damages arising from an inmate assault due to a cell placement error, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling the Crown to produce the notes and testing results of a vocational rehabilitation specialist.

The Crown had retained the specialist but later decided not to call her as a witness or request a formal report.

The Crown argued the plaintiffs waived their right to the report by not requesting it earlier.

The court held that Rule 33.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the production of such reports and ordered the Crown to produce the specialist's notes and testing results forthwith.

This ruling addresses costs arising from three summary judgment motions in consolidated actions.

In the first motion, B-W Feed & Seed Ltd. (BWFS) successfully dismissed a third-party claim by Stargate Manufacturing Inc., with the court finding BWFS owed no duty of care to Stargate.

BWFS was awarded partial indemnity costs of $33,458 against Stargate.

In the second motion, Stargate successfully defended a summary judgment claim brought by BWFS as plaintiff, and was awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,186.34 against BWFS.

In the third motion, Zehr Transport Ltd. successfully defended a summary judgment motion by Transit Trailer Limited, which sought to dismiss Zehr's action for breach of contract, warranty, and negligence.

Zehr was awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,159.30 against Transit.

The court emphasized the principle of reasonableness in fixing costs, considering factors under Rule 57.01, and reiterated that elevated costs (substantial indemnity) are generally reserved for egregious misconduct, not merely an offer to settle outside Rule 49.10.

This case involved three motions for summary judgment arising from two consolidated actions following a dump trailer tipping incident.

B-W Feed & Seed Ltd. (BWFS) moved to dismiss a third-party claim by Stargate Manufacturing Inc. and also for summary judgment against Stargate.

Transit Trailer Limited moved to dismiss an action against it by Zehr Transport Ltd. The court granted BWFS's motion to dismiss Stargate's third-party claim, finding no cause of action.

However, BWFS's motion for summary judgment against Stargate was dismissed due to complex factual issues requiring a trial.

Transit's motion for summary judgment against Zehr was also dismissed, as Zehr raised triable issues regarding breach of implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act, manufacturer's warranty, and Transit's duty to warn.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an Ontario action alleging fraud and misconduct in French estate litigation.

The plaintiffs claimed damages arising from the defendant lawyer’s conduct before a French court concerning administration of an estate located in France.

Applying the jurisdiction simpliciter framework from Club Resorts v. Van Breda, the court examined whether any presumptive connecting factors tied the dispute to Ontario.

The court found that the defendant was not resident in Ontario, did not carry on business in the province, committed no tort in Ontario, and had no contract connected with the dispute in Ontario.

As none of the presumptive connecting factors were established, Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and the action was dismissed.

The third party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party claim for contribution and indemnity arising from a slip-and-fall action involving a floor mat at a retail store entrance.

The defendants alleged that the third party supplier was responsible for a defective or unsafe mat that caused the plaintiff’s fall.

The court held that an indemnity clause in the supply agreement required the defendants to defend and indemnify the supplier against claims arising from defective products associated with the agreement.

The court further found there was no evidentiary foundation demonstrating the mat was defective or unsafe when supplied.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the full appreciation test, the court concluded the third party claim had no chance of success.