Debra Eveleigh

The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that denied them an extension of time to appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion to remove opposing counsel from the record, which had been dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to set aside, confirming that the underlying order was interlocutory and therefore the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal and motions, the court determined the scale and quantum of costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' conduct, which included baseless allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and criminal conduct against the defendant's counsel, LawPro, and the LSO, was reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous.

Consequently, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful parties, fixing the amounts at $12,000 for the defendant, $9,000 for LawPro, and $7,500 for the LSO.

The Hordos (plaintiffs/appellants) appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for various relief, including removal of the defendant's counsel, discovery-related orders, and striking pleadings.

They also brought a Rule 59.06 motion to set aside the Master's order based on alleged fraud and fresh facts, and a motion for extraordinary relief such as interim costs, declaring LawPro and LSO vexatious litigants, and appointing a receiver for the LSO.

The court dismissed all of the Hordos' appeals and motions, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Master's decision, no evidence of fraud or material fresh facts to set aside the order, and no legal basis for the extraordinary relief sought.

The court affirmed the Master's finding that the Hordos' conspiracy theory was baseless.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against a supermarket for a slip and fall, and also sued his former lawyers, the Law Society of Ontario, LawPRO, and the Crown in Right of Ontario.

The non-supermarket defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the actions against them.

The court granted the motions, finding the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts, and were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The claims against the moving defendants were struck without leave to amend, and costs of $800 were awarded to each moving defendant.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal for delay of their action against the defendant law corporation for lawyer's negligence.

The action, commenced in 2013, was dismissed in 2018 for failure to set it down for trial within five years, as required by Rule 48.14.

The court applied a contextual approach to the four-factor test for setting aside such dismissals, considering the plaintiffs' explanation for delay (inadvertence due to staff changes and maternity leave), their intent to prosecute, and the defendant's claim of prejudice (aging principal, health issues, memory deterioration).

The court found that both parties shared responsibility for the delay and, balancing the interests, decided to restore the action to active status with a strict new timetable for setting down for trial, with no costs awarded.