Mariam Hanna

The self-represented appellant sought to pursue a new action after prior proceedings and appeals concerning related allegations had concluded.

The court held the proposed appeal was a collateral attack and abuse of process and summarily dismissed it under r. 2.1.01.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal for want of jurisdiction, while the appellant brought a motion to disqualify counsel and compel document production.

The appellant sought to appeal a motion judge's order declining to schedule a motion to stay execution of a judgment from an underlying fee dispute.

The Court of Appeal held that the order declining to schedule the stay motion was interlocutory, meaning jurisdiction for the appeal lies with the Divisional Court.

The appeal was quashed, and the appellant's motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to amend her Statement of Claim to add Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (“LawPro”) as a party, and granted the defendants’ cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court found the action to be a collateral attack on previous trial and appeal decisions, an abuse of process, and barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The plaintiff’s claims, which included allegations of conspiracy, perjury, and the introduction of falsified documents, were found to be frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.