Chris Dunn

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a 16-page Notice of Application.

The City of Toronto, as the first named respondent, sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.03.

The court found that the applicant failed to follow the required procedure for vexatious litigants to seek leave to proceed, as established by a prior order.

Citing previous decisions involving the same applicant, the court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis to each respondent.

The appellants, 2352711 Ontario Inc. and 2819826 Ontario Inc., sought a stay of a compliance order issued by an application judge, which prevented them from operating a pharmacy in a condominium unit without the Declarant's consent.

The motion for a stay was brought under Rule 63.02(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, pending their appeal of the compliance order.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test for a stay (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).

While acknowledging a serious question, the court found no evidence of irreparable harm to the moving parties themselves, distinguishing harm to non-litigants (clinic, patients, public).

The balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.