James R. G. Cook

The court considered three motions for summary judgment arising from a mortgage dispute.

The plaintiff, Indigoblue Mortgage Investment Corporation, sought summary judgment against the defendants, Muhammad Ahmad and Sajidah Kausar, for defaulting on a second mortgage.

The defendants alleged they did not understand the mortgage transaction and raised defences of non est factum and forgery, claiming their son Awais Ahmad fraudulently encumbered the property.

The court found the defences unsubstantiated, holding that the defendants understood the transaction and that the mortgage was not a fraudulent instrument under the Land Titles Act.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment against third-party lawyer Toloue Ghahraei was dismissed, as was their claim of solicitor negligence.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of both the plaintiff and Ghahraei, dismissing the third-party claim against her.

The plaintiff, Leslie Arthur Swan, sued multiple defendants for conspiracy and defamation in an 81-page Statement of Claim.

The defendants requested the registrar to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court, on its own initiative, considered the dismissal.

The court found the claim to be an abuse of process because it constituted a collateral attack on issues previously litigated and appealed, including matters related to the plaintiff's tenure on a condominium board, a lien against his unit, and prior defamation claims, all of which had been decided against him.

Additionally, some claims were found to be statute-barred.

The court dismissed the entire claim.

The defendant, a real estate lawyer, brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record.

The defendant argued that he had previously consulted the plaintiff's counsel regarding the very mortgage transactions at issue in the litigation, imparting confidential information.

Furthermore, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's counsel would likely be a necessary witness at trial regarding the plaintiff's efforts to mitigate damages in a related mortgage enforcement action.

The court applied the MacDonald Estate test for conflicts of interest and the Essa factors for lawyers as witnesses.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel had a disqualifying conflict of interest and was also likely to be a witness at trial.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.

The appellants sought to overturn a motion judge's decision to dismiss their action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The underlying action concerned a mortgage whose validity had been previously decided.

The Court of Appeal found the action, which included 40 causes of action in a 300-page statement of claim, to be plainly vexatious and an abuse of process, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent's former lawyer, Murray Maltz, personally, under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion stemmed from Maltz's actions, including providing a legal opinion on a foreign divorce's validity despite ongoing disputes, removing matrimonial home designations without notice, acting on property sales, misleading opposing counsel about urgency, and disbursing funds to his client while court orders for support and costs were outstanding.

The court found Maltz's conduct to be a series of deliberate actions that assisted his client in avoiding court obligations and unnecessarily increased the applicant's costs.

The court ordered Maltz to personally pay $6,500 in costs.

The plaintiff, Thanh Nguyen, brought an action against multiple defendants, including Toronto Dominion Bank (TDB), Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG), and Thien P. Dam (a lawyer), alleging negligence related to the cashing of a Canada Savings Bond, payment of a lottery prize, and transfer of property, respectively.

TDB, OLG, and Ms. Dam brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims were statute-barred by the limitation period and that no duty of care was owed by these defendants to the plaintiff.

The court also rejected the defendants' abuse of process argument but found no genuine issue requiring a trial for the negligence claims.