Hailey Ji

The appellants appealed the case conference judge's dismissal of their action against the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The action was dismissed as a nullity because there was no pleading of bad faith, the PGT had immunity, the action should have been brought against Ontario, and the requisite 60-day statutory notice was not given.

The appellants argued the judge erred by determining the subject matter on the merits, prejudicing their second action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the action as a nullity without prejudice to a new action against Ontario, and made no decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs, who were previously found to have fraudulently over-encumbered two properties and granted sham mortgages to frustrate creditors, commenced an action against the Public Guardian and Trustee challenging the Accountant's interpretation of a prior court order regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Accountant owed money and an order for payment.

The defendant sought dismissal on the basis that the action was barred under the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and that proper notice had not been provided under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged bad faith, that the action was statute-barred, and that the required notice had not been provided.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant's son, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant himself, was improperly attempting to represent his mother and pursue the litigation on his own behalf without her sworn authorization or proper medical evidence of her capacity.

Concluding that the application was an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent prior orders, the Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding.