Tal Letourneau

The defendants, the City of Richmond Hill and two employees, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim without leave to amend under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, to dismiss the action as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d).

The plaintiff alleged harassment, threats, family division, damage to reputation, and malicious prosecution related to zoning contravention charges against his family members.

The court found that the alleged torts were not recognized in Ontario law or were improperly pleaded without sufficient material facts.

Furthermore, the claims against individual municipal employees failed due to statutory immunity under the Municipal Act, 2001, as bad faith was not adequately pleaded.

The court also determined the action constituted an improper collateral attack on concluded Planning Act proceedings against the plaintiff's family members, to which the plaintiff was a stranger.

Both branches of the motion were granted.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action regarding a collapsed hog barn, arguing it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was tolled due to the defendants' wilful concealment of construction deficiencies.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the fraudulent concealment exception for the corporate defendants and dismissed their motion.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the individual engineer defendants, finding they were protected by a limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract.

This endorsement addresses two motions brought by insurers (Wawanesa and Coseco) in consolidated actions arising from a car accident.

The motions sought to compel Gurpreet Toor and Gurjap Toor to answer discovery refusals and undertakings.

Gurjap Toor, noted in default, did not appear, and relief against him was granted.

Gurpreet Toor opposed the motions.

The court applied principles of relevance and proportionality in discovery, granting some requests (Toyota underwriting documents, questions about how Gurjap obtained keys, insurance broker's file for Toyota, property damage estimate, and police file authorization) while denying others (Toyota purchase paperwork, contact information for a former household resident).