Howard Reininger

The appellants appealed an order declaring them vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The application judge found the respondent had standing and applied the Lang Michener test, noting the appellants' history of meritless litigation against a former client who is a party under a disability.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error and dismissed the appeal, confirming the vexatious litigant order applies to the appellants in their personal capacity.

The plaintiff and third-party father sued the defendant sons for repayment of alleged oral loans totaling $248,000 used to purchase a condominium.

The sons counterclaimed for unpaid wages, alleging the payments were actually 'banked' wages from their employment at the father's companies, and sought punitive damages for the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the loan claims, finding the payments were indeed banked wages.

The court allowed the sons' counterclaim for unpaid wages, finding the father personally liable as a common employer.

The court also awarded $75,000 in punitive damages to each son due to the father's reprehensible conduct, including withholding wages, spoliation of employment records, and maintaining a false narrative throughout the litigation.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to deliver a further affidavit in their application seeking reinstatement of their membership in the respondent centre.

The applicants had already cross-examined the respondent's deponent but sought to introduce evidence addressing a new ground for termination allegedly raised during the cross-examination.

The court granted leave, finding the evidence potentially relevant to the applicants' claim that false information was provided to the membership, that there was no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent, and that there was a reasonable explanation for the evidence not being included initially.

The moving parties (defendants) sought a temporary stay of the Ontario action on the basis that another proceeding regarding the same subject matter was pending in Florida.

The Florida action had been dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens, but an appeal was pending.

The court declined to grant the stay, finding that it would be unjust to the responding party (plaintiff) because it was unclear whether the moving parties intended to raise a statute of limitations defence for the period prior to May 5, 2015.

The court held that requiring the moving parties to deliver a statement of defence would clarify the limitations issue without imposing an onerous burden, and dismissed the motion without prejudice to bringing a further motion to stay after the statement of defence was delivered.

The respondent mother-in-law was successful at trial in defending against the applicant's claim of a resulting or constructive trust over the former matrimonial home.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $47,000 or partial indemnity costs of approximately $32,000.

The court considered the Family Law Rules factors, noting the applicant's reasonable behaviour, the lack of complexity of the claim against the mother-in-law, and the applicant's limited ability to pay as a self-represented custodial parent of three children.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $30,000, inclusive of prior costs orders, disbursements, and HST.