2 total
Action against mortgagee and its lawyers struck for disclosing no cause of action and being an abuse of process.
The plaintiff, a shareholder of a corporation that previously lost a mortgage enforcement action, brought a new action against the mortgagee and the mortgagee's lawyers alleging fraud, negligence, and breach of contract.
The defendants moved to strike the claim.
The court granted the motions, finding that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as the plaintiff had no privity of contract, the lawyers owed no duty of care to a litigation adversary, and the claims were barred by the rule in Foss v. Harbottle.
The court also found the action to be an abuse of process and frivolous and vexatious, as it attempted to re-litigate issues already decided in the prior mortgage action.
Appeal of vexatious litigant declaration dismissed; denial of standing and courtroom ejection justified by disruptive behaviour.
The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant.
He argued he was denied the right to be heard when the application judge denied him standing and ejected him from the courtroom, and that the judge failed to accommodate his medical illness.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge was entitled to refuse standing due to the appellant's failure to comply with a prior peremptory order.
The Court also held that the appellant's disruptive behaviour justified his ejection and further demonstrated his vexatious manner of conducting proceedings.
