Sheila Handler

The defendant municipality brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to London.

The plaintiffs, who were injured in a bicycle-motor vehicle collision in London but now reside in Sarnia, opposed the transfer and requested the matter be transferred to Sarnia instead.

The court applied the holistic test under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the collision occurred in London, the municipal defendant's snow clearing practices were at issue, and London offered significantly better judicial resources and courtroom availability, the court ordered the proceeding transferred to London.

The plaintiff, an infant who allegedly sustained a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel her mother (the defendant driver) to be present during all of her medical appointments and assessments.

The plaintiff also sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motion after the trial record had been passed.

The court granted leave, emphasizing the interests of justice for an infant plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for the mother to be present in the examination room, finding the defence's proposal—that the mother could accompany the plaintiff and be interviewed separately, while another chaperone could be in the room—struck a reasonable balance.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for malicious prosecution and other torts against multiple public servants and entities, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the Rule 57.01 factors, noting the complexity of the case, the plaintiffs' unfounded allegations of malice and conspiracy, and the defendants' reasonable offers to settle.

The court fixed costs at $260,000 for the municipal defendants and $231,100 for the provincial defendants, representing an amount between partial and substantial indemnity.

The plaintiffs owned a property that was intentionally set on fire by a tenant, resulting in severe injuries to occupants.

The police and fire marshal investigated and concluded the property was an illegal rooming house with multiple Fire Code violations that contributed to the spread of the fire.

The plaintiffs were charged with arson by negligence under s. 436 of the Criminal Code, but were discharged at the preliminary inquiry.

They subsequently sued the investigating police officer, fire marshal investigators, and their municipal employers for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches.

The Superior Court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding no evidence of malice or bad faith, and concluding that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges based on the evidence gathered.

The plaintiffs sued various provincial and municipal officials for negligent investigation, malfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches after the plaintiff Hilary Payne was charged with arson by negligence following a fire at a student rental property.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against one defendant (an engineer-in-training) and the Charter claims under ss. 8, 11(d), and 11(g).

However, the court dismissed the balance of the summary judgment motions, finding that the novel issues of duty of care, standard of care, causation, and statutory immunity required a full trial to resolve conflicting evidence and assess credibility.