KOSTIC v RAYMOND JAMES LTD

The Appellant appealed a Case Management Justice’s dismissal of her Application to strike portions of an amended Statement of Claim.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the decision of a Case Management Justice (“CMJ”) will not be overturned unless there is an error on an extricable question of law, or the decision is clearly unreasonable. The Court of Appeal held that there was no reviewable error in the CMJ’s findings that the amended Statement of Claim had been authorized by prior Orders, and that the proposed Application to strike them now was a collateral attack on that Order and would be barred by estoppel.

The Appellant also appealed the CMJ’s decision not to permit her to apply for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 7.3. The Court of Appeal held that there was no reviewable error in the CMJ’s findings that the Appellant had not met the applicable test. In particular, her proposed Affidavit did not show that the claims against her had no merit and some of the arguments advanced by the Appellant could not be fairly or reasonably resolved summarily.

Finally, the Appellant appealed the CMJ’s dismissal of her Application to amend her pleadings to claim what she described as “immediate save harmless relief” and to schedule a hearing for that relief prior to Trial. Prior decisions had already addressed the Appellant’s claim for defence costs and indemnity from certain Respondents, determining that the issue must be addressed at Trial. The Court of Appeal found that the Appellant’s Application effectively asked the CMJ for permission to re-hear those decisions, in contravention of Rule 14.38(2)(c), which required such appeals to be heard by a panel of the Court of Appeal. Regardless, the CMJ had correctly identified that the prior decisions on this issue were binding.

The Appeal was dismissed.