Evelyn Ten Cate

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim due to her persistent non-compliance with court orders, including multiple costs awards, and her disruptive conduct.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, had a history of abusing the court process, making baseless allegations of judicial corruption, and failing to adhere to procedural rules.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion to vary a prior order and, while acknowledging the need for accommodation for self-represented litigants, found that the plaintiff's conduct warranted firm action.

The court stayed the plaintiff's action and prohibited further motions without leave, conditionally dismissing the claim if outstanding costs orders were not paid within 30 days.

The defendant insurer moved to dismiss or stay the plaintiff’s action for failure to pay several outstanding interlocutory costs awards and sought an order preventing the plaintiff from bringing further motions without leave.

The plaintiff, a self‑represented litigant, alleged the insurer wrongfully denied liability coverage following a motor vehicle accident and sought determination of coverage issues while facing related litigation.

The court weighed the policy objective of enforcing costs orders against fairness concerns arising from the ongoing liability dispute and the absence of a defence in the related action.

The court held that unpaid costs arising primarily from interlocutory appeals did not justify dismissing or staying the proceeding under Rule 57.03.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was permitted to proceed to trial to determine the insurance coverage dispute.

The appellant appealed an order requiring her to file a fresh Statement of Claim in the Superior Court rather than transferring her existing Small Claims Court claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly required a fresh claim because the original included improper references to settlement discussions and presented procedural issues.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the motion judge's decision to make no order as to costs.

The applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

More than two years later, the applicants applied for mediation and subsequently arbitration.

The insurer argued the application was barred by the two-year limitation period under section 281(5) of the Insurance Act.

The applicants argued for a 'rolling limitation period' based on prior case law.

The arbitrator held that she was bound by a Director's Delegate decision which rejected the rolling limitation period, and therefore dismissed the application for arbitration as out of time.