Adam Jordan Mortimer

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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

The Court of Appeal heard motions for leave to intervene from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) in a class action appeal concerning the Basic Income Pilot Project.

The CCLA's unopposed motion was granted, allowing it to file a factum and present oral arguments under specific terms.

The ISAC's motion was dismissed without costs because its direct involvement in shaping the factual matrix of the Basic Income Pilot Project, including consultations and advice to participants, made it too closely associated with the potential class members and the underlying factual issues, thus compromising its role as an intervener.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The Attorney General of Ontario moved to dismiss 14 proposed class actions against the Crown (specifically, former and current FSCO superintendents Philip Howell and Brian Mills) for non-compliance with the 60-day notice requirement under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The plaintiffs had filed 15 class actions alleging that auto insurers failed to comply with FSCO guidelines regarding HST calculation in SABS benefits, and that the FSCO superintendents failed to enforce these guidelines.

The Crown argued that a single notice, the 'Ralston Notice,' was insufficient for the 14 subsequent actions as it did not name all representative plaintiffs.

Applying the 'legislative purpose' approach from Mattick Estate, the court found the Ralston Notice sufficient, as it communicated a complaint reasonably anticipated to result in litigation and provided enough particulars for the Crown to investigate.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the 14 actions were permitted to proceed.

The plaintiff's claim, alleging breach of duty by the Crown and seeking damages for "traumatic stress syndrome" related to Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings, was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the claim to be an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious, as it constituted a collateral attack on Board findings, sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction, and lacked a legally recognizable cause of action against the Crown or its agents.

The Monitor sought court advice and directions regarding a proposed extension of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) closing date and alleged material breaches of confidentiality obligations by the purchaser, Lagasco Inc., in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The court authorized the Monitor to agree to a final three-week extension of the APA, noting the purchaser's good faith in dealing with unexpected financing issues, but expressed serious concerns about the confidentiality breaches.

The court directed the Monitor to ensure the extension was without prejudice to rights arising from these breaches and to prepare for a potential resumption of the sales process if the APA failed to close.