Jayanta K. Singha

The appellant appealed from orders striking his statement of claim against seven respondents without leave to amend and setting aside a noting in default against one respondent.

The motions judge found the claims, which included allegations of torture and invasion of privacy, to be frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and lacking any reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the decision to set aside the noting in default and agreeing that the pleadings were properly struck under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following a successful application for rectification of the Land Titles Register to reflect a historical right-of-way, the applicant sought costs.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the registration omission resulted from an administrative error and because the applicant had not previously provided notice of reliance on the right-of-way registered under the Registry Act.

The court rejected these submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to its costs.

The applicant’s bill of costs was found to be fair and reasonable and was granted.

The applicant sought a declaration and rectification of title to reflect an express right of way over the respondent's servient lands that had been granted under the Registry Act but omitted from the servient parcel register when the lands were administratively converted to Land Titles.

The court held that the respondent acquired only LT Conversion Qualified title and was subject to the overriding interests preserved by s. 44(1) of the Land Titles Act, including easements, despite the omission from the servient register.

Relying on the statutory scheme and analogous authority concerning administrative conversion errors, the court found the right of way ought to have been noted and ordered rectification.

The order was made without prejudice to any future action alleging abandonment or extinguishment of the easement.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay damages and costs for fraudulent misrepresentations made to obtain a mortgage loan.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in evaluating the evidence, rejecting her claim that she was an innocent dupe in a mortgage fraud scheme, and failing to assist her as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant had participated fully at trial without any failure of assistance by the judge.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.