G.I. Pardu

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his action based on absolute privilege and declaring him a vexatious litigant.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge that the alleged statements were protected by absolute privilege and that the appellant had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order prohibiting him from acting as a lawyer.

He argued the application should have been converted into an action due to complex facts and credibility issues, and that the judge made factual errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the judge applied the correct principles in refusing to order a trial and made no palpable and overriding errors in his factual findings.

The respondent obtained summary judgment in an action on a mortgage.

The appellant conceded default but argued summary judgment was unjust due to an outstanding third party claim involving a disability insurance policy that would cover mortgage payments.

The Court of Appeal found that granting summary judgment would be unjust because there was an issue as to whether the mortgage and insurance policy were linked.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.