Alicia Windsor

The appellant appealed an order declaring her a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The application judge had found that the appellant persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings against the respondent college and an individual respondent, including multiple proceedings, repeated attempts to review unfavourable outcomes, and initiation of new proceedings on the same subject matter, accumulating $161,000 in unpaid costs orders.

The Court of Appeal found no errors warranting intervention, confirmed the correct legal test was applied, and dismissed the appeal with costs of $2,500 to the college.

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, sought a panel review of a motion judge’s decision dismissing her motion for a stay pending appeal.

The underlying appeal was from an order declaring her a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, holding that Yan had not obtained leave to bring the motion as required by the vexatious litigant order and the statute.

The court reiterated that a person declared a vexatious litigant may file a notice of appeal without leave, but requires leave for any motions in the appeal.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s decision and awarded costs to the College.

The decision addresses two applications, heard together, seeking to have Nathalie Xian Yi Yan declared a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants, the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario and Mahadai Bahadur, presented evidence of Ms. Yan’s persistent and meritless litigation against numerous parties, including the College, its staff, and others.

The court found that Ms. Yan’s conduct met the statutory and common law indicia of vexatious litigation, including repeated unsuccessful proceedings, improper purposes, and failure to pay costs.

The court granted orders prohibiting Ms. Yan from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave, except for certain outstanding appeals.

The appellant sought to appeal from a motion judge’s endorsement setting aside her noting in default and striking her amended statement of claim, along with an associated costs order.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal, arguing that no orders had been issued and that the matters were interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal found that the matters under appeal were indeed interlocutory and did not preclude the appellant from pursuing her claim.

Consequently, an appeal lies only to the Divisional Court with leave.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, and the appeal was quashed.