Timothy Gindi

The plaintiffs brought motions to set aside Registrar's dismissal orders issued in May 2024 in two related inmate assault and conditions of confinement actions commenced in 2015.

Applying the Piedrahita framework, the court found the delay was adequately explained by consent timetables, pandemic disruptions, and counsel's early-2024 practice upheaval.

The motions were brought promptly after the dismissals became known, and the Crown did not demonstrate significant prejudice precluding a fair trial, particularly given its own participation in setting the litigation pace.

The dismissal orders were set aside and the actions reinstated on a strict enforceable timetable.

The defendant Brad Brand, Executive Officer of the Special Investigations Unit, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for defamation, slander, and intentional interference with economic relations on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, an SIU employee and OPSEU member, argued the dispute was personal rather than workplace-related.

The court found that the essential character of the claim, despite being pleaded as defamation, arose from alleged unfair treatment in the workplace and was therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board under the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The decision addresses a motion by the defendants (including His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and several OPP officers) to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Economical Insurance Group’s Defence and Crossclaim, under Rules 21 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court strikes certain paragraphs for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, particularly those alleging a private duty of care in negligent investigation by police officers to victims, but allows others to stand and grants leave to amend.

The court reviews the legal principles for striking pleadings and the scope of police officers’ duty of care, ultimately finding that a tenable claim may exist based on statutory duties.

The court dismissed John Cipolla’s appeal from a Small Claims Court order refusing to recognize a decision of the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (AIN) Tribunal.

The court found the appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as the AIN Tribunal is not a recognized legal entity and there was no plausible basis for its decisions to be recognized by the court.

The court also rejected arguments based on international law and Indigenous rights, finding no statutory or legal authority for the AIN Tribunal’s recognition.

The plaintiff, Bonnechere Excavating Inc., brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent its action, initiated in 2017, from being dismissed for delay.

The action, undefended, concerned a construction contract dispute with His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation).

The plaintiff attempted to justify a four-year and eight-month period of inactivity by citing a purported agreement to arbitrate, the COVID-19 pandemic, and changes in counsel/MTO staff.

The court found these explanations unpersuasive, particularly noting the lack of a mutual arbitration agreement and the plaintiff's failure to actively prosecute the claim.

Despite finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, the court dismissed the action for inordinate delay, emphasizing the importance of enforcing procedural rules for timely justice.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff was wholly successful in a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement regarding environmental pollution.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant overtly breached its settlement obligations and engaged in dilatory tactics.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be reprehensible, including attempting to secretly transfer assets and blocking remedial work.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $212,532.99.

The insurer appealed a trial judgment that awarded the insured household and attendant care expenses for a pre-judgment period, regardless of whether they were actually incurred.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by not applying the statutory definition of "incurred" under s. 3(7)(e) of the SABS-2010 and by misapprehending evidence regarding the insurer's delay in assessing benefits for the purpose of deeming expenses under s. 3(8).

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the relevant parts of the trial judgment, and ordered a new trial on the issue of whether the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.