Ma v. Ottawa (City)
The motion judge correctly held that the respondent is not responsible at law for the alleged torts of Ottawa Police Service officers and that the claim does not disclose a cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, therefore dismissal under r.2.1.01 was proper; the Court of Appeal affirmed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 142
- Parties
- Appellant: Chuang Ma; Respondent: City of Ottawa
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge Dismissal Under R.2.1.01
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; motion judge's dismissal affirmed.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Failing to Disclose Cause of Action, Frivolous and Vexatious Actions, Vicarious/municipal Liability
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chuang Ma
Appellant
City of Ottawa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge Dismissal Under R.2.1.01
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the City of Ottawa is legally responsible for torts of Ottawa Police Service officers
- 2 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
- 3 Whether the action is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process warranting dismissal under r.2.1.01
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge correctly held that the respondent is not responsible at law for the alleged torts of Ottawa Police Service officers and that the claim does not disclose a cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, therefore dismissal under r.2.1.01 was proper; the Court of Appeal affirmed and dismissed the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; motion judge's dismissal affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant shall pay respondent's costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive sum of $100.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ma v. Ottawa (City) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-02-28 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 142 Docket numbers C65978 Judges Hourigan, C. William; Benotto, Mary Lou; Huscroft, Grant Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Ma v. Ottawa (City), 2019 ONCA 142 DATE: 20190222 DOCKET: C65978 Hourigan, Benotto and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN Chuang Ma Appellant and City of Ottawa Respondent Chuang Ma, in person Jeremy Wright, for the respondent Heard: February 21, 2019 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Robert Beaudoin of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 6, 2018. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals from the endorsement of the motion judge dismissing his action pursuant to r. 2.1.01. [2] We see no basis to interfere with the decision of the motion judge. The essence of the appellant’s claim is that the Ottawa Police Service ought to have prevented an unnamed person from putting up posters stating that he was a spy. The motion judge correctly concluded that the respondent is not responsible at law for the torts of the officers of the Ottawa Police Service. The claim does not disclose a cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive sum of $100.