Melanie Lopo Van Vliet

The defendant brought three requests under Rules 2.1.01 and 2.1.02 to dismiss or stay the action and two motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff had commenced an action arising from a purported vehicle purchase, claiming the defendant accepted a non-negotiable promissory note as payment by updating his order status.

The court found the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the grandiose damages claims ranging from $30,000,000 to $8,000,000,000 were far beyond what any reasonable person would expect, and the plaintiff's ongoing multiple filings, misuse of legal terminology, baseless allegations against counsel and the court, and attempts to enforce unilaterally created PPSA registrations were hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The proceedings were dismissed in their entirety.

The defendants moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that had been granted ex parte against two properties.

The defendants raised two grounds: (1) failure to make full and frank disclosure as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) that the court should exercise its discretion to discharge the CPL on the basis that the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in land and that damages was an adequate alternative remedy.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts including ongoing negotiations regarding the terms of the agreement of purchase and sale and draft agreements that differed from the initial term sheet.

The court also applied the Dhunna factors and found that the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and there were other willing purchasers.

The CPL was discharged.

The court dismissed Tar Heel Investments Inc.'s claims against H.L. Staebler Company Limited, Lisa Arseneau, and Debbie Sutton regarding the alleged wrongful sale and use of a transportation insurance book of business.

The court found that Arseneau was not merely an employee but entered into a quasi-partnership with PDI, retaining ownership of her book of business.

No binding agreement was reached regarding the TRIP book of business, and Arseneau was constructively dismissed when her employment terms were unilaterally changed.

The court held that neither fiduciary nor confidentiality duties survived the constructive dismissal, and there was no conversion, conspiracy, or breach of contract by the defendants.

The action was dismissed.

This case involves a three-way insurance company priority dispute concerning accident benefits for a minor, Alyssia Lafontaine-Greenwood, who was 17 at the time of her single-vehicle accident.

The dispute, initially decided by an Arbitrator, centered on whether Gore Mutual (father's insurer), Dominion (mother's insurer), or Certas (driver's insurer) had primary responsibility.

The Arbitrator found Alyssia equally dependent on both parents, making Gore and Dominion jointly responsible.

Gore and Dominion appealed this decision.

The court upheld the Arbitrator's finding, applying the "palpable and overriding error" standard of review for mixed fact and law, and affirmed that non-obligatory contributions from a third party (grandmother) should not be factored into the dependency equation.