Sharpe J.A.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring them vexatious litigants.

They failed to appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the application judge's reasons and the appellants' written arguments, finding no merit to the appeal and agreeing that the appellants' conduct met the definition of vexatious litigants.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondents' family members were killed in a motor vehicle collision caused by a driver fleeing a high-speed pursuit by the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service.

The respondents sued the police service and the governments of Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, alleging vicarious liability and direct negligence.

The governments appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motions and the granting of the respondents' motion to amend their pleadings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the quadripartite policing agreement did not create a relationship sufficiently close to impose vicarious liability on the provinces, and that the governments owed no private law duty of care to the deceased based on a 1991 audit report.

The appellant tenant leased a house and undertook extensive unauthorized renovations.

After defaulting on rent, the landlord sought eviction and arrears, while the tenant sued for the value of the renovations.

The trial judge dismissed the tenant's claims and allowed the landlord's counterclaim via a summary/hybrid trial.

On appeal, the tenant argued the trial judge erred in using the summary procedure, restricting his viva voce evidence, and denying an adjournment for an expert report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's case management, evidentiary rulings, or refusal to grant an adjournment.

The appellant judgment creditor sought to enforce its judgment by having the sheriff sell the respondents' mortgaged property.

The sheriff required a mortgage discharge statement, which the mortgagee bank refused to provide without the respondents' consent, citing PIPEDA.

The respondents failed to attend examinations in aid of execution.

The appellant brought a motion to compel the mortgagee to produce the statement, which was dismissed based on binding precedent.

On appeal, a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that the mortgage discharge statement was sensitive personal information under PIPEDA, and the respondents could not be deemed to have impliedly consented to its disclosure to a judgment creditor.

The majority affirmed that the proper procedure to obtain the statement without consent is to seek an order for the examination of the mortgagee under Rule 60.18(6)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which would satisfy the court order exemption in PIPEDA.