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 upheld dismissal of Aqib Rahman’s action as an abuse of process and res judicata, but set aside the leave requirement for future proceedings.
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 Tribunal adopts an adapted three-part public interest standing test for the public interest branch of subsection 103.1(7): (1) whether the proposed application raises a substantial and genuine competition law dispute under the specified provision; (2) whether the applicant has a genuine interest in the matter; and (3) whether the proposed proceeding is a reasonable and effective means to resolve the issues. Applying that test to the materials filed, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence or capacity under the second and especially the third step to be "satisfied" that gra…
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Maria Martin’s application for leave to file another civil claim, finding it time-barred, abusive, and barred by an existing vexatious litigant order.
The Court of Appeal upheld an order declaring GlycoBioSciences Inc. and Kevin Drizen vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that leave requirements in class certification orders did not apply to related actions brought by non-class members.
The Federal Court dismissed Volodymyr Hrabovskyy’s leave motion under s. 40(4) FCA, finding his materials inadmissible, the proposed proceeding abusive, and no reasonable grounds shown.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Kathleen Walker’s appeal from an adjournment refusal and a vexatious litigant order made against her.
The court declared Corinne Pereira a vexatious litigant under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act and barred new proceedings without leave, except family law matters.
The Federal Court properly exercised its discretion in declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant and quashing or discontinuing specified Federal Court proceedings because of the appellant’s extensive abusive litigation history, non-compliance, lack of credible probative evidence showing merits (claims grounded in delusional beliefs), and risk of harassment; the Assistant Deputy Attorney General validly consented under s.40(2); the leave requirement and quashings were proportionate; costs awards including solicitor-client costs were appropriate; no palpable and overriding error disclosed on…
Source excerpt
Explore more
