Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court struck the Crown Defendants from a civil claim arising from a prosecution, but allowed the police-related pleadings to proceed in amended form.
The court dismissed and struck defamation and malicious prosecution claims arising from criminal charges and a WCB report, finding no defamatory publication or pleaded malice.
The court dismissed two related tort actions arising from a hospital incident, rejecting claims in defamation, battery, malicious prosecution, negligence, and privacy.
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable and unsupported by palpable and overriding error; the psychologist's evidence was properly rejected for lack of foundation; the psychiatrist's report was not properly in evidence; even if pleading standards were stricter than ideal, the facts did not establish negligence; and the trial judge acted within his discretion in refusing a permanent injunction.
Source excerpt
Appeal from a master’s refusal to strike a counterclaim under Rule 9-5(1)(a). The court upheld the order, finding most claims arguable and allowing amendment on negligence.
The Court held the trial judge correctly granted the non-suit because there was no evidence that the police officer did not exercise independent discretion and thus no basis to find the private respondents initiated the prosecution; the communications to the priest were not on an occasion of qualified privilege because the appellants lacked the requisite duty/interest to make the statements to a priest of a parish they did not attend; and the trial judge properly instructed the jury on joint liability as concerted action could be inferred from a common plan.
Source excerpt
Application to strike a counterclaim partly succeeded: the defamation and related claims remained, but malicious prosecution was struck for lack of termination.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge: the pleaded statements were incapable of defamatory meaning in context; malicious prosecution and champerty claims were premature or barred (including by s.36(3) RHP Act); the unlawful means/intentional interference claim was inadequately pleaded and relied on privileged/inadmissible material; intentional infliction and punitive damages claims lacked requisite particularity; the whole action constituted an abuse of process; appeal dismissed and costs fixed at $12,500.
Source excerpt
The motion judge did not err in granting the Rule 21 motion because the claim was fatally flawed regardless of which pleading was considered; the CPIC statement was irrelevant to the issues before the motion judge; and the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the motion judge's order striking the claim without leave to amend is upheld.
Source excerpt
The court held that statements to the RCMP were not protected by absolute privilege, but struck the defamation claim except for two pleaded paragraphs.
Explore more
