Stephen R. Moore

The plaintiff professional corporation brought an action against the Law Society of Ontario, several individuals, and a Superior Court judge, seeking damages and declarations related to a previous unsuccessful application.

The defendants requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the judge had absolute immunity, the plaintiff corporation had no cause of action, the issues had already been decided in the previous proceeding, and the pleadings contained inflammatory and bellicose language.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to appoint Chief Kirby Whiteduck to represent the 'Algonquins' in an action challenging Ontario's decision to grant harvesting rights to two Métis communities in a settlement area currently under treaty negotiation.

The Métis Nation opposed the motion, arguing the class was insufficiently defined and the proposed representative lacked authority.

The court found that the class of collective rights holders was sufficiently defined, the claim was collective in nature, and the balance of convenience favoured appointing the proposed representative.

The motion was granted.

Following the dismissal of a motion by a non-party insurer to intervene and compel the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim, the plaintiffs and defendants sought costs against the insurer.

The insurer did not deliver written submissions opposing the costs requests.

The court awarded costs of $18,550 to the plaintiffs and $17,181 to the defendants, payable by the insurer.

Following a train derailment that damaged the plaintiffs' property, the plaintiffs' insurer paid a portion of the losses but failed to commence a subrogated action within the limitation period.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for their uninsured losses only.

The insurer brought a motion for leave to intervene and to compel the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include the subrogated claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that where the insured's loss exceeds the insurance proceeds, the insured is not obligated to maintain an action on behalf of the insurer, and the insurer cannot correct its missed limitation period by compelling the plaintiffs to prosecute the claim.