Isabelle Corbeil

The defendant in a medical malpractice action brought a motion under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act for an order compelling the self-represented plaintiff to undergo a capacity assessment.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion seeking procedural accommodation for the plaintiff's participation to proceed exclusively in written and asynchronous formats due to severe disabilities.

The court found that the threshold requirements under s. 105(3) were met, as the plaintiff's own pleadings and conduct raised genuine concerns about litigation capacity.

The court further held that the requested accommodation of exclusively written and asynchronous participation would cause undue hardship by undermining procedural fairness, prejudicing the defendant's right to cross-examine, and straining court resources.

The defendant's motion was granted, and the accommodation request was dismissed without prejudice pending completion of the capacity assessment.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the Rules of Civil Procedure that require a litigation guardian to be represented by a lawyer.

The plaintiff sought to act as litigation guardian for her 16-year-old daughter but was unable to retain counsel.

The court held that to avoid infringing section 15 of the Charter, the Rules must be interpreted to allow a mature minor the opportunity to establish their capacity to self-represent.

The court ordered the plaintiff to file evidence of her daughter's capacity and intentions, failing which she must seek representation from the Office of the Children's Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The defendant psychiatrist brought a motion to declare the self-represented plaintiff a party under a disability and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiff had previously sustained a catastrophic brain injury and was found to require a litigation guardian in a related motor vehicle accident proceeding.

Relying on a prior capacity assessment and the plaintiff's conduct in the present litigation, the court found the plaintiff unable to appreciate the consequences of his legal decisions.

The motion was granted and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed.

The court considered a motion by several physician defendants to have Kunal Tipu declared a vexatious litigant under section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed the history of Mr. Tipu’s litigation, including multiple duplicative and meritless actions, and found that his conduct met the criteria for vexatious litigation.

The court granted the order, prohibiting Mr. Tipu from instituting or continuing any proceeding in Ontario courts without leave, and dismissed several ongoing actions as frivolous and vexatious.

In a medical malpractice action, the defendant physicians brought a motion under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to declare the self-represented plaintiff a party under a disability and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) as his litigation guardian.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's conduct, including his failure to attend a court-ordered capacity assessment, his attempts to manipulate other capacity assessments, his lack of understanding of the civil litigation process, and his communications suggesting delusions.

The court found the plaintiff to be a party under a disability and appointed the OPGT as his litigation guardian.