Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-83564 DATE: 20210810
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kathleen Corrigan, Plaintiff AND Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Defendant
BEFORE: Madam Justice Heather J. Williams HEARD: August 10, 2021
Endorsement
[1] The plaintiff seeks default judgment against nine persons in an action she characterizes as a claim for constructive dismissal. The plaintiff had been an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police.
[2] The title of proceeding of the plaintiff’s statement of claim names only one defendant, “Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario”, although the statement of claim is addressed to all nine persons against whom/which the plaintiff seeks default judgment.
[3] The plaintiff says the statement of claim was issued electronically and that she had intended to name, and believed that she had named, nine defendants to her action.
[4] The plaintiff included in her motion materials correspondence from Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, Civil Law Division, which referred to certain sections of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sched. 17. In a letter dated June 24, 2020, the Ministry’s counsel informed the plaintiff that her action was a nullity and must be discontinued because she had not provided the Crown with notice of her intention to bring a claim 60 days before the claim was issued. The Ministry’s counsel said the Crown would treat the plaintiff’s statement of claim as the required notice and invited the plaintiff to wait 60 days and issue a new claim. In a letter dated July 15, 2020, the Ministry informed the plaintiff that under the CLPA, 2019, the Crown may not be noted in default and default judgment may not be entered against the Crown, without leave of the court, which may only be obtained on notice to the Crown.
[5] The plaintiff did not issue a second statement of claim. The plaintiff provided the Crown with notice of her intention to note the Crown in default. She did not provide the Crown with notice of her motion for default judgment.
[6] The plaintiff also included in her motion materials correspondence from the insurer for one of the persons against which she seeks default judgment, the Corporation of the City of Quinte West (Police Services Board), asking her not to note the Corporation in default without prior notice. The plaintiff’s motion materials also included a letter from a law firm retained by the Belleville Police Services Board. The letter informed the plaintiff that although the statement of claim included allegations against the Board, as the Board had not been named as a party to the action, a statement of defence would not be delivered.
[7] On many occasions, this court has required plaintiffs to serve default judgment motion materials on defendants, even though defences have not been filed. Recently, in Madison Homes v. Ng, 2021 ONSC 3104, J. Wilson J. described this as a “Toronto best practice”. I see no reason why it would not be an equally good practice outside Toronto, particularly where, as here, there is reason to believe that if the default judgments requested by the plaintiff were granted, the likely if not inevitable result would be nine motions to set the judgments aside.
[8] The plaintiff’s motion is adjourned.
[9] The plaintiff shall consider whether the persons she considers to be defendants to her action have been properly named as parties to her action and, if not, what steps she must take to add them as parties and serve them with her statement of claim.
[10] If the plaintiff then wishes to renew her motion against any defendant, she shall not do so without serving the defendant with her notice of motion and all supporting materials and filing proof of service with the court.
Date: August 10, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-83564 DATE: 20210810
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Kathleen Corrigan, Plaintiff AND Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Defendant
ENDORSEMENT
Madam Justice Heather J. Williams
Released: August 10, 2021