Tamar Kim Friedman

This decision addresses summary judgment motions by the Crown defendants and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action brought by M.V. following her acquittal on extortion charges.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing M.V.'s claims for false arrest and Charter breaches as statute-barred, but allowed her claims for negligent investigation and negligence to proceed to trial, finding the limitation period for those claims began only upon her acquittal.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the existence of reasonable and probable grounds could be determined on the record, holding that the defendants had not met their burden on summary judgment.

This decision addresses motions for partial summary judgment brought by the Crown and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action by Keith and Marisa Hobbs.

The court considers whether the plaintiffs' claims are statute-barred by limitation periods, and whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the presence of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and prosecution.

The court grants partial summary judgment dismissing the false arrest and certain Charter claims as time-barred, but allows claims for negligent investigation, negligence, discrimination, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation to proceed to trial.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her so the landlord could move into the unit.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly balance the circumstances under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, ignored evidence that the eviction was retaliatory, and that the hearing was procedurally unfair due to the member's interventions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Board properly exercised its discretion, made an unreviewable factual finding that the eviction was not retaliatory, and appropriately managed a meandering hearing without demonstrating bias.

The applicants, who have Health Canada authorizations to grow medical cannabis, sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondent township from enforcing zoning and interim control by-laws against their industrial-zoned site.

The township argued the applicants were barred by the 'clean hands' doctrine for failing to obtain building permits for site renovations.

The court found the doctrine did not apply, as the permit issue was not directly related to the by-law relief sought.

Applying the RJR-McDonald test, the court granted the injunction, finding the applicants would suffer irreparable harm due to the prohibitive cost of purchasing their prescribed cannabis, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The defendants brought a motion to strike parts of the plaintiff's statements of claim arising from alleged wrongful arrests related to an investigation into unpasteurized milk.

The Crown argued the claims against two police officers were statute-barred and the claims against a provincial investigator failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim against the officers was issued in time despite late service, and the pleadings against the investigator adequately alleged the necessary elements of the torts.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its liquor licence.

The Registrar alleged the appellant was operating an illegal cannabis dispensary, contrary to s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had ceased operating its licensed business and rented the premises to an unauthorized cannabis retailer, failing to inform the Registrar or surrender its licence as required by s. 56 of Regulation 719/90.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the renewal.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Office of the Children's Lawyer failed to properly investigate his complaint regarding a clinical investigator's report in a child custody dispute.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant pled no facts linking the investigation to a protected ground.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because there is no service relationship under the Code between the Office of the Children's Lawyer and parents involved in custody litigation.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action or remove the plaintiff's counsel, alleging improper use of inadvertently disclosed privileged documents.

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to destroy one electronic copy of a privileged document and its subsequent limited use were inadvertent and caused no prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the request for a stay and removal of counsel but granted ancillary relief ordering the destruction of the privileged documents and prohibiting their further use.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and place of origin after the police and Crown declined to pursue criminal charges against his former business partner.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's explanation that he was exhausting other avenues of redress was not a sufficient good faith reason to extend the time for filing.

The application was dismissed.