The appellant challenged an order dismissing his action as an abuse of process on the basis that it constituted a collateral attack on prior mortgage proceedings.
The Court of Appeal applied the deferential standard governing appellate review of discretionary process-control orders and held that no misdirection or clearly wrong result had been shown.
The court found the appellant's real complaint concerned alleged accounting and payment issues that could have been raised during the mortgage proceedings, and noted that a statutory assessment remedy under the Mortgages Act had been initiated but adjourned.
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
