James Cook

The plaintiff's action against the Bank of Montreal, initiated after a previous similar claim was dismissed in Small Claims Court, was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found the statement of claim incomprehensible, improperly served, and a re-litigation of a dispute over a $25 wire fee and account issues, noting the plaintiff's history of similar vexatious litigation.

The corporate plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 15.01(2) to be represented by a non-lawyer agent, who was the son of the sole shareholder but held no official position in the corporation.

The defendants opposed the motion.

The court denied leave, finding that the proposed agent was not an officer, director, or shareholder, and allowing him to act would contravene the Law Society Act and Solicitors Act.

The court also noted concerns about his capability and the lack of personal financial consequences constraining his litigation decisions.

Following dismissal of claims against several defendants in a civil action, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

Multiple defendants sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiff had advanced serious and unfounded allegations attacking their integrity.

The court reviewed the governing principles for costs under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness and the expectations of the parties.

Although the allegations were serious and unsupported, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the self‑represented plaintiff appeared misguided rather than malicious.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful defendants in varying amounts, payable within 30 days.

The self‑represented plaintiff commenced a new action against numerous parties, including her former employer, its insurers, opposing counsel, and her own former lawyers, arising from circumstances surrounding her termination and the settlement of an earlier wrongful dismissal action.

Multiple defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim or obtain summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by abuse of process, the prior settlement and release, limitation periods, and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiff was attempting to re‑litigate issues resolved in the earlier action and that many claims were legally untenable, including claims against opposing counsel and insurers who owed no duty of care to an adverse party.

Claims alleging breach of privacy, breach of confidence, defamation, Charter violations, and Human Rights Code violations were also found to disclose no reasonable cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck against most defendants without leave to amend and summary judgment was granted dismissing the remaining claims of conspiracy and extortion against them.