Adam Jordan Mortimer

The applicant sought judicial review and a writ of mandamus against the Attorney General of Ontario to challenge court orders made in a separate mortgage dispute.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the application was an impermissible collateral attack on prior court decisions that should have been challenged through the available appeal routes, the court dismissed the proceeding.

The moving party sought to review the Court of Appeal's dismissal of her appeal from a Superior Court order that struck her claim as an abuse of process.

The original claim arose from a 2018 administrative error by Service Ontario that erroneously transferred registered vehicle ownership.

The moving party's motion under Rule 59.06 alleged that the panel made false statements and that one panel member was biased.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the moving party had already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Tanya Rebello’s appeal from the order of Justice Robert Centa, which struck her statement of claim and dismissed her action regarding the erroneous transfer of her vehicle’s registration by ServiceOntario.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s findings that the claims were duplicative, constituted an abuse of process, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also upheld the costs award against Ms. Rebello and declined to grant leave to appeal the costs order.

The moving party sought a panel review of a single judge's order dismissing her motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal, acting on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.02, dismissed the motion for panel review as an abuse of process.

The court noted the moving party's history of bringing meritless motions and attempting to re-litigate settled issues, concluding this was the clearest of cases warranting a Rule 2.1 dismissal.

The moving party was also prohibited from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, Nathramdas and Premwattie Chateramdas, declaring that the transfer of their property and a subsequent mortgage were fraudulent instruments under the Land Titles Act.

The court found that Melissa Sanasie fraudulently transferred title to herself and registered a mortgage in favour of RiverRock Mortgage Investment Corporation, using the proceeds for her own benefit.

The court ordered rectification of title, deletion of the mortgage, and awarded punitive damages against Melissa for her egregious conduct, including the production of falsified documents and impersonation of counsel.

The claim against RiverRock was not dismissed, and the claim against Ziba Heydarian will proceed separately.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claims related to a mistaken Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) transfer in 2018 and a medical driver's license suspension in 2016, along with a substantial indemnity costs order of $100,000.

The trial judge had dismissed the claims as statute-barred and found the appellant lacked credibility regarding her parking tickets.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error in the determination that the claims were statute-barred, as the appellant was aware of the facts giving rise to the claims well outside the limitation periods.

The Court also affirmed the costs award, noting the appellant's unreasonable conduct, failure to accept a Rule 49 offer, and history as an experienced litigant.

The defendant Crown moved to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The court found that the allegations against Crown counsel, the Premier, the Attorney General, and the judiciary disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as they were protected by absolute privilege, lacked a private law duty of care, or were barred by statutory immunity.

The court also found that the remaining allegations were an abuse of process, as they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in multiple prior proceedings commenced by the plaintiff.

The statement of claim was struck out without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the Crown.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Ontario Provincial Police, alleging breaches of common law and statutory duties, mental anguish, privacy violations, defamation, and Charter rights violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's reasoning regarding the claims, the decision to proceed without further discovery or summary trial, or the conduct of the hearing, including the order for an in-person attendance and the denial of an adjournment.

The court also upheld the costs award against the self-represented appellant.

The accused, Hassan Hassan, applied for a stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel (a Rowbotham order) for his trial on charges of extortion and aggravated assault.

Legal Aid Ontario had denied funding.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish both that he lacked the financial means to employ counsel and that he required counsel to ensure a fair trial.

The court found the applicant's testimony regarding his financial situation not credible due to incomplete disclosure and inconsistent statements about his bank accounts.

The plaintiff brought a $17 million action against the Crown, alleging negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, breach of privacy, defamation, and Charter breaches arising from the OPP's response to her complaints about suspicious vehicles and trespassers.

The Crown moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the OPP investigated the complaints thoroughly and reasonably concluded no criminal activity occurred.

The court held that the police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime for negligent investigation, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting her other claims.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the Crown on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff, Tanya Rebello, brought a motion seeking the recusal of Justice Robert Centa from hearing a summary judgment motion and her cross-motion, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the high threshold required to establish judicial impartiality, especially in the context of case management functions.

The judge addressed and rejected several grounds for recusal, including a prior decision involving the same Crown counsel, a complaint filed with the Canadian Judicial Council, procedural directions regarding reply factums and case conference scheduling, and issues concerning redacted police notes.

The defendant successfully dismissed the plaintiff's $15 million action after a three-day trial.

The plaintiff's claim stemmed from a mistaken vehicle permit transfer, but the court found her losses were due to her refusal to pay parking tickets.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing a reasonable offer to settle that the self-represented plaintiff rejected.

The court awarded the defendant $100,000 in costs, finding the plaintiff's arguments obstructive and her decision to proceed to trial futile despite her experience as a litigant.

The accused, Carolyn Burden, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after Legal Aid denied her request for a change of solicitor and dismissed her appeal.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Burden failed to prove indigence and that her right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised if she proceeded unrepresented, given her education and financial background.

The plaintiff sued the Crown for damages arising from ServiceOntario's erroneous transfer of her vehicle's VIN and subsequent refusal to re-validate her license plates due to outstanding parking fines.

The court dismissed the claim, finding it entirely time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that any alleged harm was caused by the plaintiff's failure to pay her parking tickets, not the defendant's actions.

The court also found the plaintiff's testimony regarding the parking tickets and her representative's authority lacked credibility.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, applied for leave to continue three existing actions and to rescind the vexatious litigant order.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proceedings and that continuing them would be an abuse of process, noting a history of unpaid costs orders and failure to advance litigation.

The court also declined to rescind the vexatious litigant order, finding the applicant had not learned from past mistakes and continued to exhibit abusive litigation behaviour.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following its decision to partially allow an appeal and award damages to the appellant.

The appellant sought trial costs of $750,000 and prejudgment interest of over $2.3 million, compounded annually.

The respondent conceded entitlement to trial costs but argued for a lower amount due to the appellant's limited success and for a reduction in prejudgment interest due to an 18-year delay in prosecuting the claim, also opposing compounding.

The Court fixed trial costs at $475,000 and prejudgment interest at $600,000, denying compound interest and reducing the amount due to the unexplained and unreasonable delay.

The appellant abattoir owner sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion after Ministry officials occupied its plant for 19 months following an investigation into illegal meat processing.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no duty of care and no breach of the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Ministry owed a duty of care to the targeted suspect, breached the standard of care by unreasonably prolonging its occupation of the plant and allowing meat to spoil, and caused the appellant's inability to sell the plant.

Damages of $3,520,000 were awarded for loss of enterprise value.

The appellant appealed a decision of an Associate Justice dismissing her motion to amend her statement of claim to add the Crown and various government ministries as defendants.

On appeal, the appellant abandoned the request to add the ministries and sought only to add the Crown.

The Divisional Court found that the Associate Justice erred in law by failing to apply Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding adding parties.

The court granted the appeal, allowing the appellant to add the Crown as a defendant, noting there was no non-compensable prejudice and the Crown was the proper party.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Ontario for the early cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Program.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the certification judge erred by engaging in a merits-based analysis of the breach of contract claim rather than applying the 'plain and obvious' test under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the negligence, breach of undertaking, and Charter s. 7 claims, finding that the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision immune from negligence liability and that the Charter claim failed to plead the requisite principles of fundamental justice.

The appellant, Wendy Sin Ming Ho, appealed the dismissal of her action against the Crown and four tribunals.

She alleged psychological harm from harassment and threats at an Ontario hospital (1999-2000) and subsequent failures by various tribunals to provide redress.

The motion judge dismissed her amended pleading, finding no vicarious liability for the Crown regarding hospital employment issues or quasi-judicial decisions, no Charter breaches, and no basis for a civil court to compel a criminal investigation by the RCMP.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error, no viable cause of action against the Crown, and that fresh evidence did not assist her claim.

The appeal and a motion to file fresh evidence were dismissed.