3 total
Leave granted to file late responding evidence on a summary judgment motion.
On a motion arising within a wrongful conviction action, the moving parties sought leave to file a responding record after cross-examining the defendant on his summary judgment affidavit.
The court applied the flexible Rule 39.02(2) test and held the proposed evidence was relevant to credibility and to the nature of the defendant's investigative role, responded to issues raised on cross-examination, and was not shown to cause non-compensable prejudice.
The court declined to finally determine admissibility at this stage, holding that issue should generally be left to the summary judgment judge.
Leave was granted with terms requiring advance particulars of the alleged contradictions and permitting a responding affidavit.
Plaintiffs awarded $235,768.86 in partial indemnity costs after successfully resisting a complex summary judgment motion.
The plaintiffs successfully resisted a summary judgment motion brought by the defendants in a test case.
The plaintiffs sought enhanced partial indemnity costs of $300,000, while the defendants argued for no costs due to divided success or deferral to the trial judge.
The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding the plaintiffs were wholly successful in resisting the motion despite failing on a 'boomerang' summary judgment request.
The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs of $235,768.86, finding the time spent and rates charged were reasonable given the complexity, importance, and high stakes of the test case.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a frivolous defamation action as a collateral attack on a prior license suspension.
The appellant's action for defamation and professional misconduct against the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario and its counsel was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) as a collateral attack on a prior professional misconduct decision and for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed, arguing the dismissal lacked "substantial" motion record support and that the decision should have been stayed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the claim was frivolous and devoid of merit, and clarifying that Rule 63.01(1) only applies to monetary orders, not license suspensions.
