Tranquilli

The plaintiff sued the defendant police service for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and wrongful arrest after criminal charges against him were withdrawn.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during discovery, arguing that communications between the plaintiff and his criminal defence lawyer were relevant to whether the charges were terminated in his favour.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the communications irrelevant to the tort claims and protected by solicitor-client privilege, which had not been waived.

The court also declined to order the plaintiff to obtain records for a destroyed cellphone owned by a third party.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, were injured in a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The son claimed the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and depression, disabling him from his employment as a security technician.

The mother claimed the accident caused a left shoulder impairment that prevented her from performing housekeeping and self-care.

The court found both plaintiffs met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, having sustained permanent serious impairments of important functions.

The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, future care, and housekeeping/attendant care.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for a debt owed under two private mortgages.

The defendants argued that the interest terms contravened sections 6 and 8 of the Interest Act because interest was prepaid and deducted from the advance, allegedly creating a blended mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the mortgages were clearly interest-only and that the interest rate increase was triggered by the passage of time, not default.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The court determined costs following a motion where it was held the plaintiffs did not require leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to bring an action against the defendant.

Both parties sought excessive costs and made submissions exceeding the court's page limits, focusing improperly on the merits of the action rather than the procedural motion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the costs decision was stayed pending appeal under s. 195 of the Act.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for direction on whether they required leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue an action against their former trustee in bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty against the trustee in his personal capacity for failing to detect a bookkeeper's fraud.

The court held that leave was not required because the claims were against the trustee in his personal capacity and involved alleged acts of omission, which do not fall under the s. 215 leave requirement.

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.