Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-11-03 Docket: C70940 & COA-23-CV-0092

Before: Doherty, Pepall and Copeland JJ.A.

Between:

C70940 Tanya Rebello (Appellant) Plaintiff

And: The Bank of Nova Scotia, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Board of Directors of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Aimee Zavagno of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Tom Murphy of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Brian Johnson of the Bank of Nova Scotia (Respondents) Defendants

And Between:

COA-23-CV-0092 Tanya Rebello (Appellant) Plaintiff

And: Bank of Nova Scotia (Respondent) Defendant

Counsel: Tanya Rebello, acting in person David Rankin and Marleigh Dick, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: October 30, 2023

On appeal from: The decision of Justice Susan Vella of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 7, 2022, and on appeal from the order of Justice Frederick L. Myers of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 28, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

The 2017 Action ([Rebello v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2018 ONSC 2127](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc2127/2018onsc2127.html))

[1] We agree with the analysis of the motion judge, both on the adequacy of the pleadings and his determination that it would be an abuse of process to allow the action to proceed. The motion judge properly dismissed the action.

[2] The appellant raises a reasonable apprehension of bias argument based on the motion judge’s partnership in the law firm representing the respondent. That partnership ended at least 15 years before the motion judge heard this claim. In our view, that very tenuous connection provides no basis for a finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

[3] The appeal is dismissed. We see no reason to interfere with the motion judge’s assessment of the costs of the action. Leave to appeal those costs is refused.

The 2020 Action ([Rebello v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2022 ONSC 4046](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4046/2022onsc4046.html))

[4] Once again, we agree with the reasons of the motion judge. The action brought in 2020 replicates the action that had been dismissed in 2018. Changes in dates and variations in the cast of characters referred to in the claim do not meaningfully alter the substance of the claim. The action was properly dismissed as an abuse of process.

[5] The appeal is dismissed. We would not interfere with the costs order of the motion judge. Leave to appeal the costs order is refused.

Costs of the Appeals

[6] Given the connection between the appeals, one set of costs is appropriate. Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, fixed in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of relevant taxes and disbursements.

"Doherty J.A."

"S.E. Pepall J.A."

"J. Copeland J.A."