Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: GRW Industries (1985) Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2011 ONCA 729

DATE: 20111121

DOCKET: C52411

MacPherson and LaForme JJ.A. and Hackland J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN

GRW Industries (1985) Limited (In Bankruptcy) and The Secured; Preferred and Unsecured Creditors

Plaintiff/Appellants

and

The Royal Bank of Canada

Defendant/Respondent

Counsel:

Grant Wilson, in person

Brett Harrison, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: November 18, 2011

On appeal from the judgment of Justice J.N. Morissette of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 8, 2010.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The original trial of this matter took place in 2007. On that occasion, the trial judge dismissed the action with reasons that commenced with these observations:

This case should not have been allowed to proceed to trial. It is absolutely groundless and without foundation.

[2] In dismissing the action, the trial judge found that Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) “acted completely properly” in petitioning GRW into bankruptcy. This court subsequently dismissed the appeal of the 2007 decision. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the appellants leave to appeal. It also appears that this court has since dismissed five other attempts at further appeals.

[3] This is the latest appeal, which is from the recent dismissal of the appellants’ motion seeking to re-litigate the matter based on the cause of action of fraudulent misrepresentation. The appellants claim that they are not attempting to re-litigate the 2007 action; rather, they are attempting to bring “new evidence, merits and law”, which they say both the original trial court and recent motion court refused to accept.

[4] In her brief reasons for decision, the motion judge first observed that “Mr. Wilson is, yet again, attempting to re-litigate matters that have been dealt with by this court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada”. She then noted that GRW’s primary claims at the trial of the original action were that the RBC improperly demanded loans, improperly petitioned GRW into bankruptcy, and improvidently sold GRW assets. The motion judge went on to find that those claims were not different from negligent misrepresentation and that the cause of action was res judicata.

[5] The motion judge was correct in both her reasons and result and there is no reason for this court to interfere with her decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs are ordered.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”

“Hackland J. (ad hoc)”