Lorne J. Graburn

The defendant requested that the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim be dismissed or stayed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The claim sought to resolve a dispute over the defendant bank's asserted financial interest in a vehicle acquired by the plaintiff.

The court denied the request, finding that the pleading was intelligible and did not bear the hallmarks of an abusive proceeding on its face, noting that any deficiencies in the cause of action should be addressed through a regular motion to strike.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay the orders of the motion judge, which had authorized the release of funds.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered a stay pending appeal, noting that the underlying orders were made under the mistaken belief that the moving parties and the responding bank had been served with the motion in writing.

No further payments are to be made pending the appeal.

The appellant appealed four summary judgments granted against him for various debts (mortgages, lines of credit, credit card).

The appellant's arguments, consistent with "pseudolegal" theories, asserted that he was not subject to Canadian law by attempting to separate himself from his legal personhood.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that no legally tenable defence was advanced.

The court reiterated that such arguments consistently fail and consume court resources.

The court also confirmed the admissibility of the bank's business records under the Evidence Act.