Wan Yao Chen

The defendant, His Majesty The King in Right of the Province of Ontario, brought a motion to dismiss a proposed class action for delay.

The plaintiff, Kiwayne Jones, had initiated the action over six years prior, seeking damages and declarations related to the citizenship status of former Crown wards.

Despite agreed timetables and multiple case conferences, the plaintiff failed to advance the certification motion or convert the action to an individual claim, and ultimately confirmed he was no longer interested in pursuing the matter.

The court, applying section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, dismissed the action for delay, noting that the dismissal would not prejudice putative class members as the limitation period remained suspended under section 28 of the Act, and only the plaintiff's personal claim was dismissed.

No costs were sought or awarded.

The plaintiff, Adan McIntosh, sued Justice Sharon Shore for defamation, alleging she disseminated defamatory remarks to judicial colleagues and included them in a Case History Report with intent to influence other judges.

Justice Shore moved to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(a) and (b) and 25.11(c), arguing judicial immunity and absolute privilege.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was certain to fail due to Justice Shore's unanswerable defence of judicial immunity, as her actions were within her judicial capacity, even if an error of judgment.

The court also found that absolute privilege applied as the comments were directly connected to judicial proceedings.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The applicant, Menna Nasr, sought an order for state-funded counsel (a Rowbotham order) after being denied legal aid and exhausting all available remedies.

She faced serious criminal charges in two jurisdictions, including dangerous driving, flight from police, and impaired operation, with potential for significant jail time.

The court applied the three-part Rowbotham test, finding that Nasr was financially unable to retain private counsel and that counsel was essential for her to receive a fair trial, given the seriousness and complexity of the charges, the voluminous disclosure, the number of witnesses, and her significant mental health diagnoses affecting her ability to participate meaningfully in her defence.

The application was granted, with a requirement for the applicant to contribute $2000 towards her counsel's funding.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought the forfeiture of $270,313 as proceeds of crime under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, following a police seizure during an investigation into an illegal gambling operation.

The money was found in the bedroom of Dimitri Kellesis, who contended it comprised his parents' life savings and his legitimate earnings.

The court found Kellesis's explanation for his presence at the gambling location and the source of most of the funds not credible.

However, it accepted that $75,000 of the seized amount represented legitimate savings belonging to his mother.

The court also ruled that police opinion evidence, without expert qualification, was inadmissible for proving proceeds of crime on a balance of probabilities.

The application for forfeiture was allowed in part, with the non-Canadian currency returned to Kellesis and $75,000 returned to his mother, while the remaining funds were forfeited.