Barry Stork

The applicant sought to rescind or set aside a longstanding vexatious litigant order arising from extensive litigation connected to real estate discipline proceedings and related disputes.

The court held that an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act is not a vehicle to review the correctness of the original order or re-litigate the underlying merits.

Applying the established rescission framework, the court found no evidence that the applicant had changed litigation conduct, accepted responsibility for past misconduct, advanced a potentially meritorious new claim, or moved on from the original controversies.

The application was dismissed, with costs to be addressed only if not agreed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party, who was self-represented, did not file a costs outline.

Following the unopposed dismissal of an action claiming $35 million for fraud and conspiracy, the successful defendants and third parties sought their costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of fraud were advanced recklessly, entitling the primary defendants to costs on an elevated scale.

The court awarded the primary defendants $426,055.56 (splitting the difference between partial and substantial indemnity) and awarded the third parties their full claimed partial indemnity costs of $102,980.59.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding the respondent bank's refusal to approve a rehabilitation plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank had the discretion to refuse approval for expenses over $5,000 and that its refusal was reasonable based on the medical opinion evidence.

The court also held that the application judge's reasons were adequate.

The defendant bank successfully brought a motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on two offers to settle.

The court found that the defendant's second offer, which required the plaintiff to resign and forfeit ongoing long-term disability benefits, superseded the first offer.

Because the value of the ongoing benefits was unknown, the defendant could not prove the summary judgment dismissal was more favourable than the second offer.

The court awarded the defendant costs of the motion and the action on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $57,500 inclusive.

The plaintiff sued her employer, CIBC, and the plan administrator, Great-West Life, for long-term disability benefits, funding for treatment plans, and damages for mental distress and punitive damages.

CIBC brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it.

The court found that CIBC did not breach its duty of good faith in refusing to fund the proposed treatment plans, as its decision was based on proper principles and supported by medical opinions.

The court also found no bad faith in CIBC withholding one month of benefits due to the plaintiff's failure to provide advance notice of out-of-province travel.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against CIBC were dismissed.

The defendant real estate brokerage sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion argued that the plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claims regarding suspected mortgage frauds were statute-barred.

The motion judge had found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff reasonably discovered the claims against the listing agent.

The Superior Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and concluding that the discoverability issue required a trial.