Vaughan v. Ontario
Because the appellant pleaded and relied on the documents any Criminal Code protection was lost, and on the whole record — including the speculative nature of key allegations — the motion judge properly concluded the action was frivolous and vexatious and properly refused to permit adding nine defendants.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C24838
- Parties
- Appellant: Gerald Michael Vaughan; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health; Respondent: Geor Kytayko; Respondent: Bonnie Braadley; Respondent: Patrick Burns; Respondent: Burke Thompson; Respondent: Patricia Moody; Respondent: Margaret Deagle; Respondent: Marie McConnell; Respondent: Hector; Respondent: Cameron; Respondent: Fleming; Proposed Respondents: Proposed respondents
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 September 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Motions Judge Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Frivolous and Vexatious, Pleadings, Adding Defendants, Criminal Code Privilege
- 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
Gerald Michael Vaughan
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health
Respondent
Geor Kytayko
Respondent
Bonnie Braadley
Respondent
Patrick Burns
Respondent
Burke Thompson
Respondent
Patricia Moody
Respondent
Margaret Deagle
Respondent
Marie McConnell
Respondent
Hector
Respondent
Cameron
Respondent
Fleming
Respondent
Proposed respondents
Proposed Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Motions Judge Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether documents referred to in the statement of claim remained protected by the Criminal Code
- 2 Whether the action was frivolous and vexatious and properly struck
- 3 Whether the motions judge erred in refusing to permit adding nine new defendants
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant pleaded and relied on the documents any Criminal Code protection was lost, and on the whole record — including the speculative nature of key allegations — the motion judge properly concluded the action was frivolous and vexatious and properly refused to permit adding nine defendants.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Motion judge’s refusal to permit adding nine new defendants upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Vaughan v. Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-09-13 Docket numbers C24838 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; O’Connor, Dennis; Sharpe, Robert J. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 19990913 DOCKET: C24838 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: GERALD MICHAEL VAUGHAN (Appellant) v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF HEALTH, GEOR KYTAYKO, BONNIE BRAADLEY, PATRICK BURNS, BURKE THOMPSON, PATRICIA MOODY, MARGARET DEAGLE, and MARIE McCONNELL BEFORE: ABELLA, O’CONNOR and SHARPE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Gerald Michael Vaughan appearing in person E. Mazzuca for the named respondents James P. Thomson for the proposed respondents C. Wayland for respondents Hector, Cameron and Fleming HEARD: September 9, 1999 ENDORSEMENT [1] The motions judge was entitled to consider the documents referred to in the statement of claim. Since they were pleaded and relied upon by the appellant, any Criminal Code protection was lost. In view of the entire record and the nature of the allegations, significant aspects of which are explicitly speculative on the face of the pleadings, there was an adequate basis for the motions judge to conclude that the action is frivolous and vexatious. [2] For the same reasons, we would not interfere with the motion judge’s decision not to permit the adding of 9 new defendants. [3] The appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $500.00 per respondent ($1,500.00 in total).