T.M. Wood

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children attend in-person learning rather than remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father opposed, preferring remote learning due to health risks.

Applying the framework from recent jurisprudence, the court found that the government's plan for returning to school should be presumed reasonable absent specific evidence to the contrary.

Given the children's need for social interaction, one child's learning difficulties, and the mother's inability to supervise remote learning during her parenting weeks, the court concluded that in-person learning was in the children's best interests.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiffs and the defendant police officer provided written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs' submissions were late, but the court found them timely under the Rules of Civil Procedure as the deadline fell on a weekend.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the motion, the court expressed concern over the timing of the new, more serious allegations of battery and sexual assault, which the defendant argued were an attempt to circumvent the Limitations Act.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs immediately to the successful plaintiffs, instead fixing costs at $6,500 payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add causes of action for battery and sexual assault, and sought a publication ban to protect their identities.

The defendant police officer opposed the timing of the amendment, arguing his outstanding summary judgment motion should be heard first, and sought costs thrown away.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend immediately, finding no non-compensable prejudice, and ordered a publication ban due to the sexual nature of the allegations.

The court also awarded the defendant $2,000 in costs thrown away for the need to redraft his pleadings.

The defendants requested a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who had commenced multiple similar actions, sued various government entities and a legal clinic over his involuntary committal to a hospital in 2010.

The court found the statement of claim lacked material facts, contained grandiose and legally baseless claims, and was barred by the six-year limitation period under the Limitations Act.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.