Phillip Polster

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from an order dismissing her motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, questioning whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The court determined that an order dismissing a summary judgment motion is interlocutory, meaning leave to appeal is required under section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

As no leave was obtained, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant's costs submissions were found to be lengthy, inappropriate, scandalous, and vexatious, failing to address the relevant factors under Rule 57.01.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $1,500 to the plaintiff, emphasizing the need for fair and reasonable costs and the losing party's reasonable expectation of payment.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim, alleging the plaintiff bank breached an oral agreement to accept $150 monthly payments and halt collection proceedings, thereby violating the Consumer Protection Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a previous judge had already determined as a fact that no such oral agreement existed.

Without the agreement, the defendant's claims had no foundation.