Self-represented

The applicant, a self-represented litigant incarcerated in a foreign prison, sought state-appointed counsel or amicus and a stay of proceedings pending such appointment in connection with his application for leave to appeal the summary dismissal of his applications to stay and terminate a U.S. forfeiture order enforceable in Canada under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The motion judge applied the three-part test from s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code by analogy, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate insufficient means, lacked arguable grounds of appeal given that his claims constituted collateral attacks on American judgments and Canadian court rulings, and demonstrated exceptional ability to effectively advance his appeal without counsel.

The motion was dismissed, though the Crown was directed to provide logistical support for filing materials.

The defendant brought a motion under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to restrict the self-represented plaintiff from initiating or pursuing further interlocutory proceedings in a motor vehicle accident action commenced in 2012.

The court found the plaintiff had engaged in vexatious conduct through persistent unsuccessful appeals of interlocutory orders concerning irrelevant demands for an interpreter's personal information, blind-copying numerous unrelated persons on litigation correspondence, and flooding defence counsel's inbox with repetitive emails.

The motion was granted, ordering that the plaintiff shall not institute any new motions or appeals in the action except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court.

No costs were ordered given the plaintiff's receipt of social assistance.

Case management decision in a family law appeal.

The self-represented appellant sought to perfect his appeal without filing transcripts of the trial evidence, citing inability to pay the estimated $12,000 cost after Legal Aid declined coverage.

The case management judge denied the request, holding that transcripts of all oral evidence and rulings were necessary given the fact-intensive nature of the family law trial and the appellant's grounds of appeal alleging misapprehension of evidence and errors in findings of fact.

The appellant was given a deadline to file proof of ordering and partially paying for transcripts, failing which the respondent could move to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant failed to close on the agreed date and argued the signed agreement was not binding because a clause requiring mutual consent to advance the closing date had not been initialed.

The court applied an objective test and found the signed agreement was valid and binding, noting the defendant had twice signed amendments confirming the existing terms.

Summary judgment was granted in the amount of $76,965.12, representing the difference between the contract price and resale price plus carrying costs, less the deposit which was credited against damages per the Court of Appeal's analysis in Azzarello.

The claim for lost Airbnb income was denied.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's order requiring her to post $50,000 in security for costs of her appeal.

The panel found no error in principle, unreasonable result, legal error, or misapprehension of material evidence in the motion judge's decision.

The motion judge had considered 11 outstanding costs orders totalling over $146,000, the moving party's lack of diligence in perfecting her appeal, and the prejudice to the estate beneficiaries.

The panel declined to consider new affidavit evidence filed after the motion judge's decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs of $10,000 payable to the responding party.

A licensed paralegal sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal challenging the Law Society of Ontario's restrictions on the permitted scope of practice for paralegals in immigration matters.

The motion judge found the proposed intervener failed to identify how her intervention would assist the court beyond the contributions of the existing parties and three previously granted interveners.

The proposed intervener's own action against the LSO raising substantially similar issues had been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.

The motion was also brought well past the deadline for intervention motions.

Leave to intervene was denied with no order as to costs.

The defendants' counsel notified the court that paragraph 6 of the Reasons for Decision released on October 24, 2025 incorrectly stated that two costs orders made against the plaintiff remained unpaid.

The court issued an erratum replacing paragraph 6 with corrected language detailing two costs orders totalling $12,200 against the plaintiff arising from an unsuccessful appeal and a successful defence motion for leave to amend.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff veterinarian's statement of claim arising from disciplinary proceedings by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.

The plaintiff alleged abuse of process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, Charter breaches, and defamation related to a nearly two-decade disciplinary history.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend, finding it was a collateral attack on prior proceedings, that the College enjoyed statutory immunity under s. 45(1) of the Veterinarians Act absent particularized bad faith, and that the claim against the Attorney General was a nullity for failure to provide 60 days' notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The claims against the Minister of Agriculture disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The appellant, self-represented, appealed an order of a justice of the Ontario Court of Justice to the Divisional Court.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice and invited submissions as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested a transfer to the Superior Court rather than addressing jurisdiction.

The respondent agreed the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction but opposed the transfer, arguing the appellant should recommence proceedings in the proper forum.

The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, finding the Divisional Court was clearly without jurisdiction, and declined to transfer the proceedings.

Estate trustees brought an application seeking leave to issue a writ of possession of a property forming part of the deceased’s estate, vacant possession, occupation rent, and damages against the surviving spouse who remained in the home.

The respondent asserted that the property was a matrimonial home and that he had a beneficial interest and possessory rights.

The court held that a writ of possession cannot issue without a prior order granting exclusive possession.

Because the parties were still spouses at the time of death and the property may constitute a matrimonial home, issues of title and possession must be determined under the Family Law Act before such remedies can be granted.

The court therefore dismissed the application, including the claims for occupation rent, damages, and vacant possession.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for an impaired driving offence involving operation with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The sentencing judge reduced the statutory one‑year driving prohibition to account for pre‑sentence bail conditions that prevented the respondent from driving.

The court held that amendments to s. 320.24 of the Criminal Code make driving prohibitions prospective only and require them to take effect on the date the order is made.

As a result, sentencing judges have no authority to reduce the mandatory minimum prohibition to reflect pre‑sentence conditions or administrative suspensions.

Although the appeal was allowed, the mandatory 12‑month prohibition had already expired, rendering the practical effect of the ruling moot.

The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment against the defendants for failing to deliver seven luxury watches purchased for $141,500 USD and failing to remit proceeds from three consigned handbags valued at $61,000 USD.

The defendants, who were self-represented, failed to respond to a Request to Admit and sought an adjournment at trial which was denied as the matter was peremptory.

The court granted judgment against both defendants jointly and severally for the Canadian equivalent of $194,500 USD, with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, but dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

Costs were deferred to the judicial official who determines the outstanding counterclaim.

The appellant sought to challenge the dismissal of his appeal from convictions under the Highway Traffic Act after failing to pursue the appeal for many years.

He argued that the delay resulted from the court’s failure to produce a transcript he claimed to have ordered when filing his notice of appeal.

The appellate court accepted for purposes of the appeal that the transcript may have been ordered but held that the appellant nevertheless bore the responsibility to pursue the appeal with due diligence.

A delay of approximately 17 years without steps to follow up on the transcript did not meet the due diligence requirement.

The court found no error in the appeal judge’s decision dismissing the appeal.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for firearm and drug-related offences, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the impact of incarceration on his relationship with his children and resulting family separation.

The appellant requested a modest three‑month reduction from the imposed four‑year sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge was aware of the appellant’s parental status and the inevitable interruption to family relationships caused by incarceration.

The court found no error in principle and concluded that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, the court resolved a post-judgment dispute over the applicable pre-judgment interest rate on an equalization-related payment.

The responding party argued for the presumptive statutory rate under ss. 127 and 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, while the moving party sought an averaged market-based rate under s. 130.

The court held that significant market-rate fluctuations justified departing from the presumptive rate and exercising discretion to set a just rate.

Pre-judgment interest was fixed at 2.75%, and a final order was directed to issue on the amended draft.

The appellant sought to reduce a global nine-year sentence for armed robbery-related offences by relying on fresh evidence of pre-sentence custody lockdowns and triple bunking.

The court admitted the fresh evidence but held that harsh-custody mitigation required evidence of actual impact, which was not provided.

Applying the governing approach to custody conditions as a mitigating factor within overall fitness analysis, the panel found no error in principle and no demonstrable unfitness.

Given the appellant’s extensive robbery record, parole status at the time of the offences, and the already low-end fit sentence for armed robbery, a reduction would have made the sentence unfit.

The appellant appealed a Rule 2.01 order dismissing his action concerning the respondent's mortgage.

The court held the action raised no valid issue and found the motion judge's reasons were thorough.

No error warranting appellate intervention was established.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs fixed to the respondent.

The moving party sought review of a motion judge's order refusing an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in high-conflict family litigation.

The court applied the deferential standard under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act and confirmed intervention is limited to legal error, error in principle, or an unreasonable result.

It held the motion judge applied the correct legal framework, including the best interests of the children as the overarching consideration.

The court found no error in assessing the proposed appeal's limited merit, the five-month delay, and prejudice from continued uncertainty in parenting arrangements.

The review motion was dismissed with costs.

In a family proceeding with self-represented parties and prior findings of intimate partner violence, the court addressed a motion concerning the appointment structure for amicus curiae at a bifurcated financial-issues trial.

While the Attorney General proposed a single amicus limited to both cross-examinations, the court held that two appointments were necessary to preserve fairness, avoid intimidation risk, and prevent confidentiality and appearance-of-bias concerns inherent in a single-counsel model.

The court declined to impose a solicitor-client relationship between amicus and either party, but imposed confidentiality protections and otherwise adopted the draft order terms with targeted modifications.

The order appointed two amici for cross-examinations only, maintained role limits, and directed public funding and administration through the Ministry and Legal Aid Ontario.

No costs were awarded on the motion.

In a family proceeding with self-represented parties and prior findings of intimate partner violence, the court addressed a motion concerning the appointment structure for amicus curiae at a bifurcated financial-issues trial.

While the Attorney General proposed a single amicus limited to both cross-examinations, the court held that two appointments were necessary to preserve fairness, avoid intimidation risk, and prevent confidentiality and appearance-of-bias concerns inherent in a single-counsel model.

The court declined to impose a solicitor-client relationship between amicus and either party, but imposed confidentiality protections and otherwise adopted the draft order terms with targeted modifications.

The order appointed two amici for cross-examinations only, maintained role limits, and directed public funding and administration through the Ministry and Legal Aid Ontario.

No costs were awarded on the motion.