Glenn Patrick Bogue

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision to strike their statement of defence.

The motion to strike had been adjourned to permit the appellants to pay a long outstanding costs award or file evidence of impecuniosity.

The appellants did neither.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision and upheld the striking of the statement of defence.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs of the appeal in the amount of $4,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to add additional defendants and seek damages of $76 million, punitive damages of $24 million, and an order striking down the Indian Act.

The motion was dismissed because it was brought without leave after the action had been set down for trial, in breach of Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant also objected to the composition of the appellate panel on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias, which the court rejected.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant moved to review an order dismissing his motion for a stay pending appeal of a Superior Court order that had dismissed his motion to pay monies into court or obtain an injunction preventing the sale of property in Tyendinaga Township by HSBC.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the property sale arose from proceedings between the appellant and HSBC that had been fully and finally resolved on consent.

The appellant's claim based on Simcoe Treaty 3.5 and alleged Métis rights was found to be unsupported by adequate evidence.

The defendants moved to quash the plaintiffs' appeal from a Master's decision, arguing that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction and that the appeal should be heard by the Divisional Court.

The plaintiffs contended that the Courts of Justice Act was inapplicable due to their Indigenous status and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court granted the defendants' motion, quashing the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, and awarded full indemnity costs to the successful defendants due to the unmeritorious nature of the appeal route chosen by the plaintiffs.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 to the plaintiffs, Amanda Chalupnicek et al., advising their action might be stayed or dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Despite written submissions from the plaintiffs' counsel, the court found the action constituted a collateral attack on a judgment under appeal, relied on non-justiciable laws, and contained "sovereign citizen" type arguments.

The statement of claim lacked a recognizable cause of action and was an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed.