Theresa Hartley

The Corporation of the City of Ottawa moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its action for delay and to reinstate the action.

The motion was opposed by some third parties.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal order for delay, finding that the City provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, consistently intended to prosecute the action, and acted promptly to address the dismissal.

The court also determined that the opposing parties would not suffer significant prejudice from the reinstatement.

The motion was granted, reinstating the main action and automatically reviving derivative third-party claims.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligence, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, which was found to be statute-barred.

They also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the fresh evidence motion, finding it did not meet the Palmer test, and the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the limitation period had expired by December 2018.

The court affirmed that the appellants had sufficient knowledge of their losses and the responsible parties by spring 2016, and their subjective belief that a proceeding was not "appropriate" did not delay discoverability.

The plaintiffs brought a products liability action against the manufacturer of an 'Instant Pot' pressure cooker, including a Chinese corporation, GD Midea.

The plaintiffs failed to formally serve GD Midea in China pursuant to the Hague Convention, although GD Midea's insurer had actual notice of the claim and had mistakenly served a statement of defence.

The plaintiffs sought an order validating service or extending the time for service.

The court held that Rule 17.05(3) is a complete code for service in Hague Convention signatory states, and service could not be deemed or validated simply because the defendant had actual notice.

However, given the lack of prejudice and the defendant's actual knowledge of the claim, the court granted a 24-month extension of time to effect formal service through the Central Authority in China.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate their action and the granting of the defendants' motions for summary judgment and a vexatious litigant declaration, the court determined the costs payable to the defendants.

The plaintiffs failed to provide responding costs submissions and had a history of ignoring adverse costs awards.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $85,832.43.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside previous dismissal orders on the basis of fraud.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, and the defendants collectively applied to have the plaintiffs declared vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no evidence of fraud.

The court granted the municipality's summary judgment motion, finding the claims barred by issue estoppel.

Finally, the court declared the plaintiffs vexatious litigants, noting their 15-year history of abusive litigation, frivolous appeals, and failure to pay over $218,000 in costs awards.

The parties attended a case conference to schedule several proceedings, including the plaintiffs' Rule 59.06 motions to set aside previous orders, the defendants' summary judgment motion, and an application to declare the plaintiffs vexatious litigants.

The self-represented plaintiff argued that a proposed constitutional challenge regarding the conduct of opposing counsel and the judiciary should be heard first.

The court rejected this argument, noting the constitutional challenge had not yet been commenced and the other proceedings had been outstanding for years.

The court scheduled the outstanding motions for a combined hearing.

Four consolidated appeals from orders of a motion judge who dismissed actions brought by appellants against resort management companies based on a foreign limitation period.

The appellants purchased vacation packages to a Dominican resort and alleged that two of their group were injured when a balcony railing gave way on January 1, 2011.

The motion judge dismissed the actions as statute-barred under Dominican law, which imposed a six-month limitation period for tort claims.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to conduct a proper jurisdictional analysis and by making palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding whether the appellants had a contractual claim against the respondents.

The court found that Ontario courts had jurisdiction and that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate for appellate review.