B. Miller

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to dismiss his application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The underlying application sought damages for alleged mistreatment by a housing corporation after the appellant was denied a housing subsidy and assessed a rent increase.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the application bore the hallmarks of querulous litigant behaviour and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a breach of his section 14 Charter right to an interpreter.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding the ineffective assistance claim but found no miscarriage of justice, noting trial counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable.

The Court rejected the section 14 claim, finding the appellant understood the proceedings and did not require an interpreter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, author of a book, alleged that the respondents illegally reproduced and sold unauthorized copies of his work, claiming primary and secondary copyright infringement.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment, with the motion judge finding no evidence that they had published, handled, distributed, or offered for sale any infringing copies.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge failed to apprehend key evidence and was biased.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the hearing was fair and impartial.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that set aside a stay of proceedings granted for a section 8 Charter breach.

The breach occurred when the appellant was videotaped using the toilet in a police holding cell.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, noting that the police force had since changed its policy to protect prisoner privacy, and a stay of proceedings is only appropriate in the clearest of cases.

The court found no clear error in the summary conviction appeal judge's decision and determined the issue no longer had significance to the administration of justice generally.

The appellant cashed a bank draft for a mortgagor who turned out to be a fraudster.

The appellant sued the mortgagee and the solicitor who drew the draft.

The trial judge dismissed the claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in refusing to allow an amendment to the pleadings after closing arguments, and in failing to recognize a new duty of care owed by the solicitor to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the discretionary refusal to amend pleadings and affirming that no new duty of care should be recognized in the context of bills of exchange.