Hunt v. Canada

Hunt v. Canada

The Court concluded that on the evidence Mr. Hunt met the established indicia of a vexatious litigant (repeated relitigation, frivolous and incomprehensible pleadings, unsubstantiated allegations, refusal to abide by orders, abusive and threatening communications, and unpaid costs) and that an order under s.40(1) was warranted to regulate his access to the Federal Court; recusal and appointment of counsel were denied and his s.7 claim was not established.

Citation
2017 FC 251
Parties
Plaintiff / Responding Party: Bradley Hunt; Defendant / Moving Party: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Civil Application in Federal Court / Motion for Vexatious Litigant Declaration Under S.40 Federal Courts Act
Outcome
Motion granted
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Section 40 Federal Courts Act, Charter S.7, Contempt, Recusal
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Section 40 Federal Courts Act Charter S.7 Contempt Recusal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradley Hunt

Plaintiff / Responding Party

Her Majesty the Queen

Defendant / Moving Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Civil Application in Federal Court / Motion for Vexatious Litigant Declaration Under S.40 Federal Courts Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under s.40(1) Federal Courts Act
  2. 2 Whether the judge should recuse
  3. 3 Whether the court should order appointment/payment of counsel for the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded that on the evidence Mr. Hunt met the established indicia of a vexatious litigant (repeated relitigation, frivolous and incomprehensible pleadings, unsubstantiated allegations, refusal to abide by orders, abusive and threatening communications, and unpaid costs) and that an order under s.40(1) was warranted to regulate his access to the Federal Court; recusal and appointment of counsel were denied and his s.7 claim was not established.

Court Disposition

Motion granted

Orders

  • Order under s.40(1) Federal Courts Act barring Mr. Bradley Hunt from instituting or continuing proceedings in the Federal Court except by leave of the Court
  • Motion granted without costs