Domenica Polla

The self-represented applicant sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to bring a motion for a stay pending the appeal of an order declaring her a vexatious litigant, and leave to continue certain proceedings.

The court denied the application, finding no reasonable grounds for the proposed proceedings, no serious issue to be tried, no evidence of irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the opposing parties.

The court also noted the applicant failed to serve the affected parties as required.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motion, further document production, and additional cross-examination of the defendants' affiant.

The court noted a history of significant delays caused by the plaintiffs' failure to serve responding materials.

The court found no merit in the plaintiffs' arguments challenging the authority of the defendants' counsel or the affiant's credibility.

Applying the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to ensure the expeditious resolution of the proceedings.

The self-represented plaintiffs noted the defendants in default for failing to deliver statements of defence in two actions claiming $20 million each for wrongful arrest and Charter breaches.

The defendants moved to set aside the noting in default under Rule 19.03(1).

The court applied the factors from Kisel v. Intact Insurance Company, finding the defendants' delay was reasonable given the context of multiple overlapping actions, there was no prejudice to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs engaged in sharp practice by not warning opposing counsel before noting them in default.

The motion was granted and the noting in default was set aside.