Walter Kim

The applicant sought court approval for an accident benefit settlement.

The court previously identified deficiencies and concerns regarding the allocation of settlement funds, legal fees, and a solicitor's loan.

Following a capacity assessment report indicating the applicant was not mentally incapable, the court noted that judicial approval was not required.

The court requested an explanation from the applicant's counsel regarding a prior representation to the Licence Appeal Tribunal that a court order had appointed a litigation guardian, and a copy of any such order, before considering dismissing the application without costs.

The appellants appealed orders of the Superior Court dismissing their motions to set aside a settlement order approving a settlement of their son George Lochner's claim for damages arising from a police altercation in which he was tasered.

The appellants lacked standing to challenge the settlement order as they were not parties or persons affected by it within the meaning of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Their second motion was an abuse of process as it attempted to re-litigate the same standing issue.

The appellants' proposed fresh evidence regarding George Lochner's taser injuries was inadmissible as it could not have affected the outcome of the motions.

The appeals were dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents and the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) and the defendant police officers brought a motion seeking a declaration that Lina and Paul Lochner lacked standing to challenge a court-approved settlement concerning George Lochner, a party under disability.

The court found that Lina and Paul had received courtesy notice of the settlement approval motion but were not legally entitled to notice, nor were they "affected persons" under Rule 37.14(1) as their proprietary or economic rights were not impacted.

The court granted the PGT's motion, declaring Lina and Paul had no standing, and awarded costs against them due to their unmeritorious arguments and disruptive courtroom behaviour.

The court also initiated a process under Rule 2.1.02 to summarily dismiss Lina and Paul's own motion to set aside the settlement judgment as an abuse of process.

This costs endorsement arose from a motion brought by the applicant wife for the appointment of an interim receiver, which was adjourned after the respondent husband secured financing.

The court found the applicant was justified in bringing the motion due to the husband's delay in payment but acted unreasonably by refusing to adjourn the motion when requested by the co-respondent brother, who had recently retained counsel.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the applicant's requested costs, disallowing fees for court attendance and scrutinizing the reasonableness of claimed hours and disbursements.

The respondent husband was ordered to pay $9,744.61 in costs.

The moving parties, family members of a disabled plaintiff, brought a motion to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as his Litigation Guardian.

The underlying action involved allegations of police assault and the use of tasers.

The moving parties alleged the PGT was not acting in the disabled plaintiff's best interests by pursuing a settlement rather than proceeding to trial.

The court applied the 'best interests' test and found no evidence of misconduct, conflict of interest, or failure to disclose material facts by the PGT.

The motion to remove the PGT was dismissed.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for a plaintiff under a disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $65,000 settlement of his claims against police officers for alleged excessive use of force (Taser deployment).

The plaintiff's family opposed the settlement, arguing for higher damages.

The court reviewed the liability risks, including conflicting evidence on the number of Taser deployments and the application of s. 25(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as the medical evidence regarding damages.

The court concluded the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the plaintiff's best interests, and approved the settlement along with $5,000 in costs to the PGT.

The self-represented plaintiffs moved to consolidate a Rule 7.08 settlement approval motion, brought by the Public Guardian and Trustee on behalf of a co-plaintiff under disability, with the upcoming trial.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 6 only permits consolidation of 'proceedings', and a motion is not a proceeding.

Furthermore, the court noted that consolidation would be inappropriate as it would expose the trial judge to privileged settlement information, prejudicing the plaintiffs.

The court also ordered the sealing of an affidavit containing privileged settlement details.

Motion by a litigation guardian seeking court approval of a proposed settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a plaintiff found to be a party under disability.

The proposed settlement provided for an all‑inclusive payment of $45,000 relating to claims of assault, battery, wrongful arrest, detention, negligence, and alleged Charter breaches arising from a police incident involving multiple taser deployments.

The court considered a capacity assessment confirming the plaintiff lacked the ability to instruct counsel and therefore required representation by a litigation guardian.

The court held that the evidentiary record concerning liability, damages, and pre‑judgment interest was insufficient to determine whether the proposed settlement was reasonable or in the plaintiff’s best interests.

Approval of the settlement was refused.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for a co‑plaintiff and to appoint different guardians, the successful party sought costs.

The court applied the principle that costs generally follow the event and considered the factors under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding parties’ submissions largely attempted to re‑argue the merits of the earlier motion rather than address costs.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable to the successful party.

Lina and Paul Lochner brought a motion to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as the litigation guardian for their brother, George Lochner, a party under disability.

The PGT had been appointed by a previous court order and was seeking court approval for a proposed settlement with the defendants.

Lina and Paul opposed the settlement and sought to be appointed as litigation guardians instead.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to meet the high onus of demonstrating clear and cogent evidence of misconduct or that the PGT was not acting in George's best interests.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), acting as litigation guardian for a plaintiff under a disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a proposed $45,000 settlement of claims arising from an alleged police assault.

The plaintiff and his family opposed the settlement, arguing he was not under a disability and should proceed to trial.

Following a court-ordered capacity assessment, the court confirmed the plaintiff lacked capacity to instruct counsel and that the PGT had the authority to settle the action.

However, the court found the evidentiary record insufficient to meaningfully assess the reasonableness of the proposed settlement, particularly regarding general and special damages.

The court directed the PGT to provide further medical documentation and adjourned the approval determination.

The plaintiff, having been found not criminally responsible, was ordered detained at a mental health facility but was instead held in a provincial jail for 50 days due to a lack of hospital beds.

The plaintiff sued the Crown for false imprisonment and Charter breaches.

The Crown moved to strike portions of the Statement of Claim.

The court struck the false imprisonment and Charter damages claims with leave to amend, finding the Crown statutorily immune based on the current pleadings and noting the failure to plead bad faith for Charter damages.

The court allowed the underlying Charter breach claims to proceed.

Following an application concerning the seizure of cigarettes under the Tobacco Tax Act, the applicant succeeded on a Charter challenge under s. 8 and obtained a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter requiring the return of seized cigarettes or payment of their value.

However, the respondents succeeded on the statutory interpretation issues under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The court considered costs pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Exercising its discretion to allocate costs by issue, the court declined to award costs for the statutory issues and limited recovery to the Charter portion of the proceeding.

An all‑inclusive costs award of $50,000 was ordered.

A tobacco manufacturer sought declarations that a shipment of unmarked cigarettes seized by authorities under the Tobacco Tax Act was unlawfully seized and that it had a right to possess the tobacco.

The court found that the warrantless search and seizure of a delivery vehicle violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the detention and search occurred without reasonable and probable grounds and because the authorized official improperly directed police remotely.

Although the court held that the applicant’s operations demonstrated substantial non‑compliance with the Tobacco Tax Act and its permit conditions, the Charter breach justified a remedy.

The court ordered the return of the seized cigarettes belonging to the applicant or compensation for their value if they had deteriorated.