4 total
A motion to stay a vexatious litigant order pending appeal requires leave from a Superior Court judge.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Ms. Yan’s motion to stay a vexatious litigant order made against her under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, as she had not obtained leave from a judge of the Superior Court of Justice as required.
The court held it was not appropriate to grant leave in its ex officio capacity, especially where procedural requirements, including notice to the Attorney General, had not been met.
Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.
The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant due to her persistent, meritless, and harassing litigation history.
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 court dismissed a self-represented plaintiff's motion to act for an estate without a lawyer.
The self-represented plaintiff, Jennifer Scarangella, brought a motion seeking an order to act in a representative capacity on behalf of the estate of her late partner without a lawyer in a medical negligence action.
The defendants opposed, arguing that Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires an estate to be represented by a lawyer and that Rule 2.03 should not be applied to dispense with this requirement.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not an appropriate case to dispense with the requirement for legal representation, particularly because the issue was raised promptly by the defence and the plaintiff was seeking monetary damages for both herself and the estate, engaging the core rationale of Rule 15.01(1).
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a frivolous defamation action as a collateral attack on a prior license suspension.
The appellant's action for defamation and professional misconduct against the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario and its counsel was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) as a collateral attack on a prior professional misconduct decision and for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed, arguing the dismissal lacked "substantial" motion record support and that the decision should have been stayed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the claim was frivolous and devoid of merit, and clarifying that Rule 63.01(1) only applies to monetary orders, not license suspensions.
