Sheila Colleen Handler

The appellants, landlords of student housing, appealed the dismissal of their claims for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, Charter violations, and bad faith against fire prevention officers and the City of Windsor.

The claims arose after the appellants were charged with Fire Code violations for operating their properties as lodging houses, which charges were later withdrawn or acquitted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the fire prevention officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges, did not conduct a negligent investigation, and did not act with malice.

The court also dismissed the Papic appellants' additional claims related to property development delays, finding them to be policy decisions or lacking legal basis.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the officer had subjective reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, finding it supported by evidence and objectively reasonable.

The allegation of negligent investigation was dismissed because the appellants failed to present expert evidence on the standard of care to rebut the police's evidence.

The court affirmed that summary judgment in favour of a defendant was appropriate in this case.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiffs to the Lowe's defendants at $114,091.83 and to the Windsor Police Service (WPS) defendants at $91,841.47, on a joint and several basis.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments of impecuniosity and public interest litigation, finding they failed to provide robust financial disclosure and that their claims were primarily private in nature despite involving Charter rights.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and that the costs sought were reasonable given the complexity and duration of the action, and the WPS defendants' offer to settle.

The plaintiff City of Windsor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant engineering company, RC Spencer Associates Inc., seeking 50% of damages paid to homeowners for sewage backups.

The City alleged Spencer provided incomprehensible drawings for a sewer separation project, leading to the removal of an essential overflow mechanism.

The court ordered a mini-trial to hear oral evidence regarding the clarity of the drawings.

The court found both parties negligent, with Spencer's drawings lacking sufficient detail for the contractor and inspector to understand the need to maintain the overflow, and the City being negligent as the final reviewer and inspector.

The court apportioned liability equally, ordering Spencer to pay 50% of the damages.

Appellants appealed the dismissal of their action alleging negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and Charter damages arising from the respondents' investigation of a fire at a rental house.

The fire was intentionally set by a resident, but spread rapidly due to Fire Code violations.

The appellants were charged with arson by negligence under s. 436 of the Criminal Code.

The charge against one appellant was withdrawn; the other was discharged at preliminary inquiry.

The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges and acted in good faith without malice.

The appellants appealed, arguing the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds because they lacked the requisite mens rea.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that under the modified objective test for negligence-based offences, the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the marked departure from the standard of care inferred from Fire Code violations.

The plaintiffs, former employees of an automobile dealership, sued police and others for damages after a criminal investigation led to the dealership's closure and their job loss.

The defendants moved for an order striking out the plaintiffs’ Statements of Claim.

The court dismissed the negligent investigation claim, finding no private law duty of care owed by police to employees of a suspect.

It granted leave to amend for civil conspiracy and misfeasance in public office claims, but struck other intentional tort claims without leave.

The police defendants brought two motions: one to exclude the public from the court hearing pursuant to s. 135(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, and another to seal the file pursuant to s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Both motions were dismissed.

The court noted that the defendants could seek public exclusion on a hearing-by-hearing basis to address concerns over the release of personal and identifying information of complainants and minor witnesses.

Material for a future summary judgment motion (Rule 20) may be sealed upon filing, subject to the motion judge's discretion.

Costs were reserved.

The plaintiff sought leave to file a statement of claim after failing to do so within the 30‑day period following issuance of a notice of action.

The underlying action alleged damages for wrongful arrest, prosecution, and incarceration arising from charges that resulted in an acquittal.

The court held that issuing the notice of action within the limitation period tolled the limitation period and that the failure to file the statement of claim in time was an irregularity caused by solicitor inadvertence.

Applying the test from Nugent v. Cook, the court found the delay resulted from inadvertence and caused no prejudice to the defendant.

Leave was granted to issue the statement of claim and extend time for service.

A teenage plaintiff became paraplegic after falling from a tree in a municipal park.

The plaintiffs alleged the municipality breached its duties under the Occupier’s Liability Act by failing to monitor the park, trim or remove the tree, or prohibit tree climbing.

The court held that the municipality’s inspection and maintenance practices were reasonable and that the risk of injury from climbing the tree was not reasonably foreseeable given the absence of prior complaints or incidents.

The court rejected arguments that the municipality should have altered or removed the tree or enacted prohibitions on climbing.

The action was dismissed, although the court stated that if liability had been established the plaintiff’s contributory negligence would have been assessed at 67 percent.

Two applications sought interpretation of an insurance policy issued to a Children’s Aid Society concerning legal expense coverage for foster parents charged with Criminal Code offences.

The applicants argued that the $500,000 aggregate limit applied per policy year, allowing stacking across successive policy periods in which defence costs were incurred.

The insurer argued that the legal expense rider was a claims‑made policy triggered only in the policy period when the criminal proceedings commenced and that coverage was limited to a single $500,000 aggregate limit.

The court held that the wording of the rider allowed aggregate limits to accumulate across policy periods but concluded that the foster parents ceased to qualify as “insureds” after their termination.

As a result, recovery remained limited to the $500,000 aggregate available under the 2008–2009 policy.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of a statement prepared by a property manager shortly after a motor vehicle accident on a commercial parking lot.

The statement had been created following the accident after the property manager contacted the insurer and an adjuster and anticipated litigation.

The court held that litigation privilege attached because the dominant purpose of the investigation and statement was to prepare for potential litigation and assist the employer’s defence.

The court further held that privilege was not waived when the witness reviewed the statement prior to her examination for discovery.

The motion for production was therefore dismissed.