Taha Hassan

The plaintiffs sought an order for relief from the deemed undertaking rule to use a "Show Cause Brief" (a document obtained through discovery and a freedom of information request) in an existing complaint to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) and a contemplated private criminal prosecution against two police officers not named as defendants in the civil action.

The defendants opposed, arguing a breach of the rule and potential prejudice.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached the deemed undertaking rule but granted leave to use the Show Cause Brief, determining that the public interest in police accountability outweighed the diminished prejudice to the defendants, particularly given the public nature of the document and its availability through other means.

The plaintiff, a former Toronto police officer, sued the defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Charter breaches following his arrest and prosecution for corruption and other offences.

The criminal charges were ultimately stayed or withdrawn.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the absence of reasonable and probable grounds for the charges, which was fatal to the malicious prosecution and negligent investigation claims.

The court also found no evidence of malice, deliberate unlawful conduct intended to harm, or conduct calculated to cause mental suffering.

The claim for Charter damages was also dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought motions for an order amending the style of cause, summary judgment against one defendant, and default judgment against the other defendant.

The defendants had provided joint and several personal guarantees for corporate loans that went into default, leading to a receivership.

The court granted the amendment to the style of cause to include aliases.

The court granted summary judgment against the defending guarantor, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and granted default judgment against the noted-in-default guarantor based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence.

Judgment was granted for over $3 million plus full indemnity costs.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car appealed a decision finding it was the first loss insurer in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The insured was a listed driver under her father's standard Ontario Automobile Policy issued by Intact Insurance, but not a named insured.

The policy provided rental vehicle coverage only when rented by a named insured or their spouse.

The court held that the priority rules under the Insurance Act depend on the existence of coverage under the policy.

Since no coverage was available to the insured for rental vehicles under Intact's policy, the priority provisions did not apply, and Enterprise's insurer was responsible as the first loss insurer.