Obermuller v. Kenfinch Co-Operative Housing Inc.

Obermuller v. Kenfinch Co-Operative Housing Inc.

The court upheld dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 because the statement of claim was plainly an abuse of process and an attempt to re-litigate issues finally determined in prior eviction and subsidy proceedings; notice requirements were satisfied and the appellant failed to comply; certain respondents enjoyed statutory immunity; and counsel owed no duty of care, therefore dismissal was warranted and should be affirmed.

Citation
2016 ONCA 330
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Cheryl Obermuller; Defendant (respondent): Kenfinch Co-Operative Housing Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Josephina Boto; Defendant (respondent): Iler Campbell; Defendant (respondent): Celia Chandler; Defendant (respondent): Joseph Van Tassel; Defendant (respondent): Sylvia Watson
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice / Decision on Appeal (dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motion judge's dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Frivolous and Vexatious Actions, Summary Dismissal Under Rule 2.1.01, Res Judicata/finality, Statutory Immunity, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Administrative Law Abuse of Process Frivolous and Vexatious Actions Summary Dismissal Under Rule 2.1.01 Res Judicata/finality Statutory Immunity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheryl Obermuller

Plaintiff (appellant)

Kenfinch Co-Operative Housing Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Josephina Boto

Defendant (respondent)

Iler Campbell

Defendant (respondent)

Celia Chandler

Defendant (respondent)

Joseph Van Tassel

Defendant (respondent)

Sylvia Watson

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice / Decision on Appeal (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in dismissing the action under Rule 2.1.01 without a public hearing
  2. 2 Whether the appellant received proper notice and had opportunity to make submissions under Rule 2.1.01
  3. 3 Whether the action is an abuse of process and amounts to re-litigation of matters finally determined

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 because the statement of claim was plainly an abuse of process and an attempt to re-litigate issues finally determined in prior eviction and subsidy proceedings; notice requirements were satisfied and the appellant failed to comply; certain respondents enjoyed statutory immunity; and counsel owed no duty of care, therefore dismissal was warranted and should be affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motion judge's dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The respondent law firm is awarded all-inclusive costs of $1,000.00, payable forthwith.