Pitters v. Home Trust Company
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 155
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 2 March 2026
- Posture
- Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From R. 2.01 Dismissal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 2 March 2026
- Posture
- Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From R. 2.01 Dismissal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge correctly concluded the action raised no valid issue about the mortgage and provided thorough reasons; the appellant failed to show any error warranting appellate interference.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs of the appeal are to the respondent fixed in the amount of $2,500
02
Material facts
Parties
marlon Pitters
Plaintiff/appellant Counsel: acting in personHome Trust Company
Defendant/respondent Counsel: Amanda McInnisAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded: CAD 2,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From R. 2.01 Dismissal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application judge properly dismissed the action under r. 2.01
- 02
Whether the appellant raised any valid issue concerning the respondent's mortgage
- 03
Whether appellate intervention was warranted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant appealed the r. 2.01 order dismissing his action, asserting that his action raised issues concerning the respondent's mortgage that should not have been dismissed.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued the action raised no valid issue regarding the mortgage, the r. 2.01 judge gave thorough reasons, and there was no basis for appellate interference; costs sought for the appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure r. 2.01
Rule 2.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal of an action that discloses no reasonable cause of action or triable issue
- 02
Appellate review principles/case law
An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary trial or application judge's decision absent demonstrable error or a palpable and overriding error
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge correctly concluded the action raised no valid issue about the mortgage and provided thorough reasons; the appellant failed to show any error warranting appellate interference.
Obiter and limits
- Costs of the appeal fixed at $2,500
- The appellant left the Zoom call prior to delivery of the decision on costs
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs of the appeal are to the respondent fixed in the amount of $2,500
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 2 March 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 2 March 2026
Pitters v. Home Trust Company Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-03-02 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 155 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-1043 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Favreau, Lise G.; Osborne, Peter J. Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Pitters v. Home Trust Company, 2026 ONCA 155 DATE: 20260302 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-1043 Simmons, Favreau and Osborne JJ.A.
BETWEEN marlon Pitters Plaintiff (Appellant) and Home Trust Company Defendant (Respondent) marlon Pitters, acting in person Amanda McInnis, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: February 26, 2026 by video conference On appeal from the judgment of Justice Loretta Merritt of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 10, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] We see no merit in the appellant’s appeal of the r. 2.01 order dismissing his action. The appellant’s action raised no valid issue concerning the respondent’s mortgage. The r. 2.01 judge gave thorough reasons for the decision to dismiss. The appellant has raised no issue warranting appellate interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed. [2] Costs of the appeal are to the respondent fixed in the amount of $2,500.[1] “Janet Simmons J.A.” “L. Favreau J.A.” “P.J. Osborne J.A.” [1] marlon Pitters left the zoom call prior to delivery of the decision on costs.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.