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
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a vexatious litigant order, finding no reversible error in the application judge’s s. 140 analysis.
The Court of Appeal held the application judge lacked jurisdiction to make a vexatious litigant order on his own initiative; s.140 requires an originating application by an interested person and, absent such an application, the appropriate remedy for serial frivolous litigation is dismissal of individual proceedings under r.2.1.01 rather than a judge‑initiated province‑wide status declaration.
Source excerpt
The court found no evidence of fraud and concluded the moving materials only challenged the court's reasons; accordingly the motion under Rule 59.06 was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and was dismissed on the court's own initiative under Rule 2.1.02(1).
Source excerpt
The Court concluded the record demonstrably showed the appellant conducted multiple proceedings arising from the same incident in a vexatious manner—characterized by multiplicity, unsupported and farfetched allegations, evidence of malice, refusal to participate, and unpaid costs—and that these facts satisfied s.140 CJA; the application judge’s limited order against proceedings involving the respondents was a permissible exercise of discretion, so the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded.
Source excerpt
The motion judge correctly found the impugned expression constituted vexatious litigation and did not relate to a matter of public interest under s.137.1(3); the motion judge did not err in dismissing the SLAPP motion or in awarding costs under s.137.1(8); the Court of Appeal will not entertain constitutional arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Source excerpt
The application judge’s finding that Simpson met the statutory and common‑law hallmarks of a vexatious litigant (multiple meritless proceedings, harassment, relitigation, refusal to pay costs) was correct; the appellant identified no errors on appeal, so the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the vexatious litigant declaration and awarded costs.
Source excerpt
Because the motion judge declared the appellant a vexatious litigant without a formal s.140 application and without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard, the order breached procedural fairness and must be set aside despite any substantive merit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal concluded the application judge properly found the appellant to be a vexatious litigant and validly issued a prohibitory order as to civil proceedings under s.140 CJA, but erred by extending and conditioning indefinite prohibition on non-payment of costs and by attempting to prohibit criminal proceedings: the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction is unnecessary to bar private criminal informations because Parliament and the Attorney General have statutory mechanisms (s.507.1 pre-enquete and s.579(1) stay) to address frivolous private prosecutions; the hearing in the appel…
Source excerpt
The application judge did not demonstrate reasonable apprehension of bias or deny natural justice because his interventions were aimed at structuring the proceeding; he was entitled to refuse or limit cross-examination where the affidavit was an uncontroversial historical recitation and the appellant had not acted timely or shown a proper evidentiary basis; the procedural limits (five‑page responding affidavit, adjournment) were within judicial discretion; the record supported the finding that the appellant was a vexatious litigant under s.140 and the vexatious litigant order was correctly ma…
Source excerpt
The appellant's extensive history of repetitive, abusive litigation and prior appellate decisions provided overwhelming evidence that a s.140 vexatious litigant order was necessary and justified to prevent further abuse; the order supervises rather than denies access to the courts.
Source excerpt
Explore more
