3 total
The court ordered two similar class actions to be heard consecutively and held that a case management judge cannot preside over summary judgment motions without consent.
Two class action proceedings—one against TELUS Communications Company and related entities, and one against Bell Mobility Inc.—were brought by plaintiffs alleging that the defendants engaged in similar practices of rounding up seconds to minutes on cell phone bills.
The defendants moved to consolidate the two actions for trial or summary judgment.
The court granted the motion to hear the two summary judgment motions consecutively in a single three-week block of hearing time, finding that the common issues were identical and that separate proceedings would create an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and risk inconsistent findings.
However, the court determined that the case management judge would not preside over the summary judgment motions, as the principles underlying Rules 37.15(1) and 77.06(2)—which prohibit a case management judge from presiding at trial without consent—apply equally to summary judgment motions.
The court abbreviated the expropriation notice of possession period to allow a transmission line project to proceed on schedule.
Hydro One Networks Inc. applied for orders to adjust the dates of possession in Notices of Possession under the Expropriations Act, to allow the application to proceed in the absence of a representative of the estate of James Thomas Witzell, and to dispense with service on the estate of Witzell and Susan Carol Boyes.
The application concerned the Waasigan Transmission Line Project, a 360 km electricity transmission line project in Northwestern Ontario.
Hydro One sought to abbreviate the notice period by 32 days to allow construction to begin on schedule.
The court granted the relief sought, finding that adjustment was in the public interest and that no prejudice to landowners was demonstrated.
The court dismissed the self-represented plaintiffs' action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01.
The court dismissed an action brought by self-represented plaintiffs under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous and vexatious.
The statement of claim contained disjointed allegations of fraud, defamation, and discriminatory practices without articulating any legally recognized cause of action or providing particulars to support the claims.
The pleading included inflammatory references to serious crimes, exaggerated damage claims, and unexplained attachments.
The court found the action incapable of success and riddled with hallmarks of vexatious litigation.
