Amanda Bafaro

This endorsement addresses a case conference requested by Sergio Grillone, an undischarged bankrupt, seeking directions regarding his proposed appeal from a scheduling endorsement and related matters in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

The court finds that Mr. Grillone has no right of appeal from the scheduling endorsement, as no order has been made from which an appeal lies, and dismisses his proposed motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01.

The decision details the procedural history, the positions of the parties, and the court’s reasoning for dismissing the motion.

Following a lengthy trial where the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 but the defendants obtained a costs award of over $3.4 million, the defendants moved to recover those costs from four non-party litigation loan providers who had advanced funds to the plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the non-parties, finding that while the loans carried exorbitant interest rates, providing them did not amount to an abuse of process under the 'person of straw' test or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court also noted that while litigation loans should be approved by the court in class proceedings, the statutory requirement to do so did not exist at the time the loans were made.

The plaintiff was involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents and sued multiple defendants, including her own insurer, State Farm, because one driver was uninsured.

At trial, one defendant, Hnatiuk, was found 100% responsible for the first accident, and the action against State Farm was dismissed.

The trial judge refused to order Hnatiuk to pay State Farm's costs (a Bullock or Sanderson order) and awarded the plaintiff solicitor-and-client costs against Hnatiuk based on an unaccepted offer to settle that included escalating costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, granting a Sanderson order directing Hnatiuk to pay State Farm's costs.

The Court dismissed Hnatiuk's appeal regarding the costs award, upholding the solicitor-and-client costs either under the discretion of Rule 49.13 or as a valid Rule 49 offer.