Sunny Kim

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a class action for delay pursuant to section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff had issued a Notice of Action in September 2020 and a Statement of Claim in October 2020, serving it in March 2021.

However, since serving the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff's counsel had taken no steps to advance the action, nor had they communicated with the defendants' counsel or responded to the dismissal motion.

The court found that none of the statutory requirements for advancing the proceeding (such as filing a certification record or agreeing to a timetable) had been met by the first anniversary of the proceeding's commencement.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action for delay, also dispensing with the requirement for public notice of dismissal due to the existence of a parallel class action with similar claims.

The plaintiff sued the defendant police officers and their employer for negligent investigation after criminal charges of a sexual nature against him were withdrawn.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the motion judge dismissed on the basis that expert evidence was required to determine the standard of care and whether reasonable and probable grounds existed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the motion judge erred in law; expert evidence is not required for a court to assess reasonable and probable grounds, as this is within the routine experience of a judge.

Finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on the complainant's statements, the court allowed the appeal, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action.