Peter Diavolitsis

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the lawyers and a consultant acting for a corporation in which he is a minority shareholder, alleging negligence and enabling oppression.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 review to determine if the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that while the plaintiff may eventually have a viable claim depending on the outcome of his main oppression action, the current claim against the corporation's professionals was premature and an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed without prejudice, with leave required to recommence after the main action concludes.

The defendants were successful on a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, noting that the plaintiff's combative approach and refusal to accept constructive direction necessitated the motion and the participation of all defense counsel.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the law firm representing a defendant in another proceeding, alleging errors in a motion record and improper requests for a case management judge.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the claim should be dismissed.

Finding that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was initiated to express frustration with opposing counsel, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, awarding costs to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff had issued a single claim but served different, cut-and-pasted versions on each individual defendant.

The court ordered the plaintiff to prepare, issue, and serve a single 'Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim' containing all allegations against all defendants in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the court prohibited the plaintiff from initiating any further proceedings or motions without leave of the case management judge.

The plaintiff appealed an order requiring her to produce a letter sent by an accountant to her lawyer, claiming it was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's determination that the plaintiff had given a clear, unconditional undertaking during discovery to produce the letter.

Furthermore, the court agreed that the communication did not fall within the specific categories where solicitor-client privilege attaches to third-party communications.

The defendant mortgagor moved to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee, and to stay a prior order declining to set aside a notice to vacate.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no plausible explanation for the defendant's default, no arguable defence on the merits regarding priority of encumbrances or Planning Act compliance, and that setting aside the judgment would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff and undermine the administration of justice.

Following a prior decision granting the defendants’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the court considered costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs from the date the settlement was accepted, arguing the subsequent litigation resulted solely from the plaintiff’s refusal to honour the settlement.

The court applied s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rr. 49.10 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Substantial indemnity costs were found appropriate, though the court reduced counsel’s hourly rate and excluded time relating to proceedings where no costs had been awarded.

Costs were fixed at $15,960.63 payable by the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce a settlement agreement allegedly reached via correspondence between counsel.

The plaintiff argued that while it agreed to dismiss the action, it never agreed to discharge the mortgages on the commercial properties it had sold to the defendants.

The court found that, viewed objectively, the plaintiff's offer to dismiss the action reasonably included giving up its mortgage remedies, and the defendants' acceptance created a binding contract.

The court exercised its discretion to enforce the settlement, noting that allowing the litigation to continue would prejudice the defendants due to significant delay and lost evidence.

The action and counterclaim were dismissed, and the mortgages ordered discharged.