Stuart Jude Huxley

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing and a timetable order to set the action down for trial.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

The underlying action was a subrogated claim by TD Insurance for foundation damage to the plaintiff's home, allegedly caused by construction at the Chinese embassy.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the action for delay, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to lack of transparency, failure to obtain a confidentiality order, inappropriate venue, and remediation work done without notice to the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis for PCL and fixed amounts for the other parties.

The plaintiffs initiated a class action against numerous governmental and international entities, including Pope Francis and Queen Elizabeth II, alleging harms from COVID-19 protocols and constitutional infringements.

Several defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the statement of claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to its rambling nature, irrelevant historical allegations, and lack of specific legal basis for claims.

The action was dismissed in its entirety against all defendants, with no costs awarded.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a proposed class action and constitutional challenge as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action asserted a global conspiracy related to COVID-19, seeking billions in damages from various domestic and foreign entities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, legal analysis, or factual findings, and affirmed that the case was a clear instance for applying Rule 2.1.01.

The appellant appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice that dismissed her application for directions and other interlocutory and injunctive relief related to a proposed class action that had not yet been commenced.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the lower court's order was not a final order as required by s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The order merely dismissed a request for directions under r. 37.17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and did not dispose of a proceeding or finally determine an issue.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect her appeal from a decision dismissing her application against the City of Ottawa (Ottawa Public Library), as well as relief from various procedural requirements including electronic service, dispensation from filing hard copies of appeal materials, and dispensation from filing a transcript of evidence.

The application judge had dismissed the underlying application on the basis that it did not disclose a cause of action and that the relief sought was moot.

The motion judge granted the extension of time, permitted electronic service, accepted an agreed-upon transcription of the oral reasons, and granted relief from filing hard copies based on the moving party's financial hardship and the court's lack of proper technological infrastructure.