Stephenson v. Gravenhurst (Town)
The Court dismissed the appeal: although the respondent should have proceeded by application, the mis-description as a motion caused no prejudice under Rule 2.01; the judge was entitled to hear the s.140 matter first and the record supported declaring the appellants vexatious litigants; costs of $5,000 were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 589
- Parties
- Appellant: Deborah Stephenson; Appellant: Stephen Woodrow; Respondent: The Corporation of the Town of Gravenhurst
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 15 August 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (application to Lift Stay; Respondent Sought Declaration Under S.140)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Vexatious Litigant Declarations, Procedure — Application Vs Motion, Stay of Proceedings, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Deborah Stephenson
Appellant
Stephen Woodrow
Appellant
The Corporation of the Town of Gravenhurst
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (application to Lift Stay; Respondent Sought Declaration Under S.140)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was required to proceed by application rather than motion under the Rules
- 2 Whether the mis-description as a motion caused prejudice requiring the judgment to be set aside
- 3 Whether the judge was obliged to hear the appellants' application before the respondent's s.140 proceeding
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal: although the respondent should have proceeded by application, the mis-description as a motion caused no prejudice under Rule 2.01; the judge was entitled to hear the s.140 matter first and the record supported declaring the appellants vexatious litigants; costs of $5,000 were appropriate.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellants declared vexatious litigants under s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Stephenson v. Gravenhurst (Town) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-08-15 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 589 Docket numbers C58431 Judges Doherty, David H.; Laskin, John Ivan; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Stephenson v. Gravenhurst (Town), 2014 ONCA 589 DATE: 20140815 DOCKET: C58431 Doherty, Laskin and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Deborah Stephenson and Stephen Woodrow Appellants and The Corporation of the Town of Gravenhurst Respondent Deborah Stephenson and Stephen Woodrow, appearing in person Michael Miller, for the respondent Heard: August 15, 2014 On appeal from the judgment of Justice J.R. McCarthy of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 27, 2014. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellants brought an application to lift a stay imposed in an earlier proceeding by Healey J. The respondents brought a “motion” for an order declaring the appellants vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act. The judge dealt with the respondent’s “motion” first and declared the appellants vexatious litigants. [2] The appellants argue that the respondent was required to proceed by application and not motion and that this error requires that the judgment be set aside. They also argue that the respondent’s misstep prejudiced them because the judge was obliged to hear this application first before the respondent’s “motion”. [3] The respondent should have proceeded by application. However, the mis-description of the proceeding as a “motion” caused absolutely no prejudice to the appellants. They had full notice of the respondent’s position and the arguments advanced against them. [4] The appellants are wrong in suggesting that the judge was obliged to hear their application first. He was entitled to proceed as he did. In any event, had he addressed the application first, the judge, given his reasons on the s. 140 application, would no doubt have dismissed the application. [5] Apart from the technical argument brought by the appellants, which cannot succeed absent any demonstration of prejudice (see Rule 2.01), the finding that the appellants are vexatious litigants was fully warranted in the record. [6] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.