Leonard F. Marsello

The appellants appealed an order striking out their claim of economic duress and effectively dismissing their entire action against the respondent banks.

The motion judge had found that past dealings between the parties could not constitute economic duress to vitiate a restructuring agreement and release.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by failing to apply the 'plain and obvious' test for striking pleadings under Rule 21.

The Court found it was not plain and obvious that a claim of economic duress based on past dealings would inevitably fail, and ordered the appellants to file a new, focused statement of claim.

The appellants appealed the costs awarded by the lower court judge following a lengthy hearing.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the submissions and found no error in principle in the judge's exercise of discretion regarding the costs order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the municipality for abuse of public office and conspiracy to injure.

The appellants alleged that the municipality passed zoning by-laws prohibiting 'monster' homes with the true purpose of preventing student housing.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, concluding there was no evidence the by-laws were directed solely at the appellants or that student housing was specifically targeted.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal, requesting further written submissions on the issue of costs.

The defendants brought a motion for directions to determine whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' appeal from an order dismissing their cross-motion for partial summary judgment, alongside their appeal from the final order granting the defendants summary judgment and dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the order dismissing the partial summary judgment motion was interlocutory.

Therefore, the plaintiffs must first obtain leave to appeal to the Divisional Court before the Court of Appeal can assume jurisdiction over both matters under section 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants' motion for directions was denied.