Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal as frivolous and abusive because Ronald Hitti filed without the leave required by a vexatious litigant order.
The court confirmed a registrar’s report on common area expenses, dismissed Delane’s document-production application, and declared Delane and Mr. Au Yeung vexatious litigants.
The motion judge's determinations that the appellant engaged in a long history of vexatious proceedings and that the respondents were properly authorized to bring the s.140 application were supported by the record; there was no error in law or principle and no basis for appellate interference, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court refused leave for Mr. Dick to start a new civil claim against Mr. Baker, finding the proposed action about Mexican property was doomed to fail.
La Corte desestimó la solicitud de permiso de una litigante declarada vexatious para apelar, al concluir que la apelación propuesta no era razonable ni arguible.
The Court dismissed the applications because the pleadings were clearly unsustainable and failed to disclose any genuine issue of material fact; claims against Justice Gatchalian and Corinne Currie were barred by judicial/quasi-judicial immunity; the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant and enjoined from filing any process in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and Nova Scotia Small Claims Court without leave because her filings constituted abuse of process and threatened the administration of justice.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Vicky Arvanitis’s applications to vary several chamber orders and refused to declare her a vexatious litigant.
The Court of Appeal dismissed s. 9(6) review applications, granted protective relief, barred electronic service on the respondent, amended the style of cause, and fixed costs.
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide a credible and timely explanation for the more than two‑year delay (including failure to provide contemporaneous evidence of attempts to file), failed to file properly sworn affidavits, the proposed appeal lacked arguable merit, and permitting the appeal would cause significant prejudice to the respondent and the children; accordingly the interests of justice did not favor an extension or a stay.
Source excerpt
Because the appellant was subject to a Federal Court vexatious litigant order that on its face required leave to institute proceedings and the appellant had not obtained leave and had used a variant name to evade detection, the Notices of Appeal were improperly filed; Rule 74 and the Court's plenary powers authorized removal of the Notices and termination of the appeals as an abuse of process; Fabrikant did not prevent this result.
Source excerpt
Explore more
