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 Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and abusive, finding it was a collateral attack on earlier orders and judgments.
The motion is dismissed under r.2.1 because the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process given the applicant's repeated, meritless attempts to re-litigate settled decisions; therefore the applicant is prohibited from bringing further related motions without leave and costs are awarded.
Source excerpt
The motion under r.59.06 was dismissed because the applicants did not demonstrate the narrow circumstances warranting relief under the rule, their allegations about counsel did not alter the uncontroverted finding that they owe monies under the mortgage, and the motion constituted an abuse of process; costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis and the r.2.1 request was declined.
Source excerpt
The pleadings and the appellant's filings manifestly showed frivolous, vexatious and abusive litigation with no intelligible cause of action or grounds of appeal; accordingly r.2.1 applied, the panel review motions and the Google appeal were dismissed, and the appellant's fee waivers were revoked under s.4.10 of the Act.
Source excerpt
The motion was properly dismissed under Rule 2.1 because the Rule 59.06 materials sought merely to re-litigate issues already finally decided on summary judgment and on appeal, contained no evidence of fraud or new critical evidence, and therefore constituted a frivolous, vexatious and abusive proceeding warranting dismissal and a bar on further motions without leave.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed under r.2.1.01 because it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process: it attempts to relitigate issues already decided by this court, advances no arguable grounds of appeal, involves non‑compliance with prior orders and unpaid costs, and the court is empowered by rule 2.1.01 and its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss and restrict further filings.
Source excerpt
The Court held the Superior Court action was an attempt to relitigate issues already finally determined, the respondent had standing to move under r.2.1, the proposed fresh evidence did not affect the outcome, and therefore dismissal under r.2.1 was proper; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the Superior Court's dismissal because the statement of claim disclosed nothing that could amount to a cause of action, was plainly frivolous and an abuse of process, and there was no prospect that allowing written submissions would change the outcome.
Source excerpt
The Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the amount claimed in the statement of claim exceeded $50,000 under s.19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act; accordingly the motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was devoid of merit and was dismissed under Rule 2.1.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1 because the appellant's action and proposed appeal were frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process, disclosing no reasonable cause of action except possibly against the former landlord, and therefore could not possibly succeed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
