Crozier v. Ontario (Minister of the Solicitor General) et al., (1999) 103 O.T.C. 1 (SC)

• Judge: Wilkins, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: July 23, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 103 O.T.C. 1 (SC)

Crozier v. Ont. (1999), 103 O.T.C. 1 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. AU.013

Joseph Crozier (plaintiff/responding party) v. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of the Solicitor General and Thomas B. O'Grady - Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (defendants/moving party)

(Court File No. 96-CU-103990)

Indexed As: Crozier v. Ontario (Minister of the Solicitor General) et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Wilkins, J.

July 23, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff, an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) superintendent, was required to relo­cate from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury. Because of a declining real estate market, he lost more than $64,000 on the sale of his house. The plaintiff applied for real estate equity loss compensation from the OPP. His application was declined. The plaintiff appealed to the Relocation Expense Com­mittee, which denied the request for com­pensation. The plaintiff brought this action, alleging conflict of interest and bias among the members of the committee. The defen­dants moved to strike the plaintiff's state­ment of claim, asserting that: (1) there was no genuine issue for trial disclosed in the pleadings; (2) the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action; and (3) the action was frivolous and vexatious. The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statement of claim.

The Ontario Superior Court held that the action had progressed to such a late stage that the proper person to exercise discretion with respect to any amendment to pleadings was the trial judge. The court also held that the trial was so imminent that little or no benefit would be obtained by denying the plaintiff an opportunity for a hearing. The court reserved the motions to be heard by the trial judge.

Practice - Topic 1463

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Requirement of disclosing cause of action - See paragraphs 72 to 92.

Practice - Topic 1464

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Plea for general relief - See paragraphs 72 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2120

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of claim - General - See para­graphs 72 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2133

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - At trial - General - See paragraphs 78 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2143

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Circumstances when amendment denied - General - See paragraphs 72 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2210

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Time for objection or application - See para­graphs 78 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - See paragraphs 72 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - See paragraphs 72 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2244

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Bars - Delay - See paragraphs 78 to 92.

Practice - Topic 2246

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Bars - Where striking contrary to "justice and reason" - See paragraphs 72 to 92.

Cases Noticed:

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 20].

Aguonie v. Galion Solid Waste Material Inc. et al. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 114; 38 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Dawson et al. v. Rexcraft Storage and Warehouse Inc. et al. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 201; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 1, dist. [para. 74].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121; 16 D.L.R.(2d) 689, refd to. [para. 77].

Canson Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 83].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562; [1932] All E.R. Rep. 1; 101 L.J.P.C. 119 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 85].

McAlister (Donoghue) v. Stevenson - see Donoghue v. Stevenson.

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. (1928), 248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Belsat Video Marketing Inc. v. Astral Communications Inc. et al. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 77.14(8) [para. 12].

Counsel:

John R. Carruthers, for the plaintiff;

Jack Coop, for the defendant.

This application was heard on July 14 and 16, 1999, by Wilkins, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who delivered the following decision on July 23, 1999.