other means of publicizing her candidacy and getting her message
out through, for example, online communications or radio ads.
Ms. Goldy responds that she has a statutory right to advertise
with the licensee of her choice, and that she had valid reasons for
choosing CP24 to run her ads.
 I accept that Ms. Goldy may have valid reasons for preferring CP24 as the media outlet for her ads, but I consider the
absence of evidence of her attempts to place ads with other less
preferable television stations or other media outlets to be a factor
that affects my discretion concerning the exercise of residual
jurisdiction in rare and exceptional circumstances. I also consider
as a factor in the exercise of my discretion the evidence that
Ms. Goldy made no application to the CRTC upon or after counsel
having being retained. I also consider that Ms. Goldy is polling
at approximately 6 per cent according to the submissions of her
counsel and that the outcome of this application will not have any
realistic impact on the outcome of the election.
 For the foregoing reasons, this application is dismissed.
 Counsel for Ms. Goldy made written submissions as to
costs in his memorandum of oral argument. If Bell, after reviewing these submissions, seeks costs, it may make written submissions within ten days. Ms. Goldy may make written responding
submissions within ten days thereafter. If so advised, Bell may
make brief reply submissions within five days thereafter.
Smith v. Armstrong et al.
[Indexed as: Smith v. Armstrong]
2018 ONSC 2435
Superior Court of Justice, R.D. Gordon R.S.J.
April 17, 2018
Civil procedure — Dismissal for delay — Class proceedings — Plaintiff
commencing proposed class proceeding in 2000 — Defendant moving in
2017 to dismiss action for delay — Motion granted — Plaintiff
not providing reasonable explanation for inordinate delay — Strong
presumption of prejudice to defendants existing — Dismissal for delay
not precluding subsequent class proceeding by another representative.
The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action in 2000 for damages for
Charter breaches, battery and negligence, alleging that members of the Canadian
Armed Forces who were deployed to Somalia were ordered to take an anti-malarial