George F. Windsor

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

The defendants requisitioned an order to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the defendants, lawyers, and judges, and sought to relitigate matters already determined in prior proceedings.

The court found the action to be manifestly devoid of merit, consisting of scandalous attacks and an evident attempt to relitigate decided issues.

The action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The moving parties sought a review of a motion judge's order that dismissed their request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The underlying appeal was from an order striking out their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the test for an extension of time, agreeing that there was no apparent merit to the appeal and that granting an extension would prejudice the responding parties.

The Court noted that the Brampton action, which was struck, appeared to be an improper attempt to circumvent rulings made in prior Ottawa actions.

The motion for review was dismissed.

The appellants, Gilles Jozias Overtveld, Enrique M. Jurado, and Rachida Youmouri, appealed several interlocutory orders made by a case management judge in an underlying application concerning Mr. Overtveld's capacity to manage property and personal care.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals as all challenged orders were interlocutory, not final.

The orders included dismissal of a contempt motion, a motion to strike the application, motions regarding access to Mr. Overtveld, a motion to remove counsel, and a motion for payment of accounts.

The court quashed the appeal, affirming that interlocutory orders do not finally dispose of the parties' rights.

The moving parties sought an order extending the time to file a notice of appeal of a Superior Court decision that struck their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion, finding that the proposed appeal lacked merit and that granting the extension would cause ongoing prejudice to the responding parties due to the scandalous and vexatious nature of the allegations, which included conspiracy theories against lawyers, expert witnesses, court staff, and judges.

The court emphasized that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension given the lack of arguable grounds and the vexatious nature of the litigation.

The appellants sought long-term disability benefits for a disability allegedly arising in 1990, despite their insurance policy having been cancelled that same year for non-payment of premiums.

The action was commenced in 2005.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent, finding the limitation period had expired and the individual appellant was not saved by the incapacity provision in s. 7 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing there was no medical evidence demonstrating the appellant lacked the capacity to commence the action.