S. Clements

The court considered a motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim, which alleged a conspiracy by the defendants to cause the plaintiff to lose his business and property through the misuse of regulatory and legal proceedings under the Retirement Homes Act, 2010.

The court found that most of the plaintiff’s claims were barred as an abuse of process, collateral attack, or because they relied on inadmissible evidence under the Act.

The court also found that the claims did not properly plead bad faith or conspiracy with sufficient particulars, and that the statutory immunity provisions protected the defendants for actions taken in good faith.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety, with leave to amend denied.

Following a twelve-day trial regarding a property boundary and adverse possession dispute, both parties sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs of $150,563.98, while the defendants claimed partial indemnity costs of $248,861.38 and relied on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that success was equally divided, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the boundary terminus issue and the defendants succeeded on the adverse possession claim.

Consequently, the court ordered that each side bear their own costs.

The parties appeared before the court to request clarification of paragraph 112 in the first Addendum to Judgment.

The defendants proposed an additional sentence to avoid ambiguity regarding the common boundary between the properties.

The plaintiffs took no position, provided the original meaning remained unchanged.

The court agreed to amend the paragraph to clarify that the common boundary terminating at the water's edge is an ambulatory boundary that moves with the water level.

The parties appeared for further submissions to determine the terminus of the common boundary between their waterfront properties, following a previous judgment.

The court amended the judgment to clarify that the common boundary terminates at the water's edge of Balsam Lake.

On consent, the court also amended the judgment to restrict both parties from launching from or occupying land or water on specific sides of the respondent's dock to prevent impairment of each other's riparian rights.

Multiple defendants moved to strike a self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and, in one instance, to set aside a noting in default.

The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were vague, nonsensical, unsupported, and in several respects beyond the court's jurisdiction, including challenges relating to information access and social benefits matters.

Applying the governing test for setting aside default and the pleading standard for striking claims, the court found the action frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The noting in default against one defendant was set aside, and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety against all moving defendants without leave to amend.