Steven G. Bosnick

Following the successful dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against 78 defendants, six groups of defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the complexity of the claims, the plaintiff's mental health, and principles of proportionality and fairness.

The court reduced several of the costs claimed to ensure comparability and fairness, ultimately awarding a total of $71,000 in costs across the successful defendants.

The moving lawyer defendants sought to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s expansive civil action alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, Charter breaches, defamation, and other torts arising from criminal proceedings and child protection litigation.

The court held that the statement of claim lacked material facts linking the lawyer defendants to the alleged misconduct and improperly attempted to relitigate criminal convictions and child protection determinations.

Many claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the pleadings vague, speculative, and abusive, failing to establish recognized causes of action or the elements of torts such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation, or abuse of public office.

The action against the four lawyer defendants was struck or dismissed without leave to amend.

A tribunal and one of its members moved to dismiss or strike a civil action arising from the tribunal’s review of a complaint against a physician.

The plaintiff alleged conspiracy, conflict of interest, and negligence in connection with the tribunal’s confirmation of a professional regulator’s decision not to take action against the physician.

The court held the pleadings failed to allege material facts establishing bad faith, which is required to overcome statutory immunity for tribunal members acting in good faith.

The claim was also a collateral attack on the tribunal’s decisions and was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.

The statement of claim against the moving parties disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent's new by-law was invalid and that his removal as President under that by-law was void.

The respondent had implemented the new by-law without obtaining the required Ministerial approval under the Canada Corporations Act.

The court found the new by-law invalid and declared the previous 2005 by-law operative.

While the applicant was estopped from challenging actions taken under the shared assumption of the new by-law's validity prior to November 2012, his removal as President occurred after this period and was declared invalid.

The court ordered a fresh election under the 2005 by-law.