Tiveron v. Collins

Civil Procedure Appellate Law Litigation Control Vexatious Litigant Designation Rules of Civil Procedure R.2.2 Jurisdiction to Make Orders Costs

Citation: 2025 ONCA 806
Status: Judgment
Jurisdiction: Canada
Court: Court of Appeal for Ontario
Decision: 21 November 2025
Posture: Civil Appeal and Motion / Motion in the Court of Appeal to Declare Appellant a Vexatious Litigant (dismissed)
Language: English

More details

Court: Court of Appeal for Ontario
Decision: 21 November 2025
Posture: Civil Appeal and Motion / Motion in the Court of Appeal to Declare Appellant a Vexatious Litigant (dismissed)
Language: English

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

Holding and result

Because there was no ongoing proceeding before the Court of Appeal after the appellant's motions and appeal were dismissed, the court could not make a vexatious litigant order under r.2.2.03(1)(a) or r.2.2.04(1); accordingly the respondent's motion was dismissed without prejudice and she was permitted to apply to the Superior Court under r.2.2.03(1)(b) and (3) or to renew the motion in relation to future proceedings.

Court disposition

Motion dismissed without prejudice; no costs ordered for this motion.

Orders

Motion dismissed without prejudice to bringing an application in the Superior Court pursuant to r.2.2.03(1)(b) and r.2.2.03(3) or to renewing the motion in respect of any further proceedings in this court or the Superior Court.
There shall be no costs of this motion.

Material facts

Parties

Amber Crystal Tiveron

Applicant (respondent/moving Party) Counsel: acting in person

Eric Richard Collins

Respondent (appellant/responding Party) Counsel: acting in person

Procedural history

Posture

Civil Appeal and Motion / Motion in the Court of Appeal to Declare Appellant a Vexatious Litigant (dismissed)

Questions and positions

Legal issues

01
Whether the appellant should be declared a vexatious litigant under r.2.2.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
02
Whether the Court of Appeal could make a vexatious litigant order in the absence of an ongoing proceeding before this court
03
What costs order, if any, should be made in relation to the motion

Party arguments

Applicant: Applicant sought an order declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant under r.2.2.02(a) based on the appellant's recent filings and conduct and asked the court to make the designation or to allow the matter to proceed in the Superior Court.
Respondent: Appellant opposed the designation and pursued motions for fresh evidence, a review motion and an appeal (each dismissed by the court); implicitly resisted any restriction on his ability to litigate and contended the court should not make the vexatious designation in these circumstances.

Court’s reasoning

Legal principles

01
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (r.2.2.02(a))

A party may be declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 2.2.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
02
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (r.2.2.03(1)(a); r.2.2.04(1))

The Court of Appeal may make a vexatious litigant order on motion under r.2.2.03(1)(a) or on a judge's own initiative under r.2.2.04(1) only where there is an ongoing proceeding before the court.
03
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (r.2.2.03(1)(b); r.2.2.03(3))

Where no ongoing proceeding exists in this court, a party may apply to the Superior Court under r.2.2.03(1)(b) and r.2.2.03(3) for a vexatious litigant designation.

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because there was no ongoing proceeding before the Court of Appeal after the appellant's motions and appeal were dismissed, the court could not make a vexatious litigant order under r.2.2.03(1)(a) or r.2.2.04(1); accordingly the respondent's motion was dismissed without prejudice and she was permitted to apply to the Superior Court under r.2.2.03(1)(b) and (3) or to renew the motion in relation to future proceedings.

Obiter and limits

The prior dismissal of the appellant’s motions and appeal occurred on November 20, 2025.
No costs were ordered for this motion.

Court disposition

Motion dismissed without prejudice; no costs ordered for this motion.

Motion dismissed without prejudice to bringing an application in the Superior Court pursuant to r.2.2.03(1)(b) and r.2.2.03(3) or to renewing the motion in respect of any further proceedings in this court or the Superior Court.
There shall be no costs of this motion.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal for Ontario · 21 November 2025

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Judgment· 21 November 2025

2025 ONCA 806

Tiveron v. Collins Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-11-21 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 806 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0435, M56232 Judges Roberts, Lois B. Subject Civil Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Tiveron v. Collins, 2025 ONCA 806 DATE: 20251121 DOCKET: M56232 (COA-25-CV-0435) Roberts J.A. (Motion Judge)

BETWEEN Amber Crystal Tiveron Applicant (Respondent/Moving Party) and Eric Richard Collins Respondent (Appellant/Responding Party) Eric Richard Collins, acting in person Amber Crystal Tiveron, acting in person Heard: in writing

REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The respondent seeks to have the appellant declared a vexatious litigant under r. 2.2.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. [2] On November 20, 2025, this court dismissed the appellant’s motion for fresh evidence, review motion and appeal, with costs to the respondent. [3] Given the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal and motions, there is no longer any “ongoing proceeding” before this court in which the order sought by the respondent could be made, either on motion by a party under r. 2.2.03(1)(a) or on a judge’s own initiative under r. 2.2.04(1). [4] Accordingly, I dismiss the respondent’s motion but without prejudice to the respondent either bringing an application in the Superior Court pursuant to r. 2.2.03(1)(b) and (3), or renewing her motion in respect of any further proceedings in this court or in the Superior Court. [5] I order that there be no costs of this motion. “L.B. Roberts J.A.”

Authorities