F.L. Myers

The plaintiff commenced a second action against the defendant for the same relief sought in a previously dismissed lawsuit.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, to which the plaintiff did not respond.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, noting that repeatedly suing for the same relief justifies the use of the attenuated process under Rule 2.1.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's response to a Rule 2.1 notice regarding his 400-page statement of claim for medical malpractice.

While the court found the pleading to be prolix, abusive, and lacking a concise statement of material facts, it recognized a valid cause of action buried within the submissions.

Instead of dismissing the action under Rule 2.1, the court struck the statement of claim under Rules 25.06(1) and 25.11, granting the plaintiff 60 days to file a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff commenced an action against numerous defendants, including government bodies, churches, and individuals, alleging harassment and breaches of the Charter and BC Human Rights Code.

The court had previously stayed the action under Rule 2.1 and directed the plaintiff to provide written submissions.

Finding that the statement of claim disclosed no recognizable legal basis to sue any of the defendants and that the plaintiff's repeated attempts to sue were abusive and vexatious, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff commenced a third action against the defendant for the same relief, following the dismissal of a previous action under Rule 2.1.

The court stayed the action and issued a notice in Form 2.1A, to which the plaintiff did not respond.

The court dismissed the action without costs, finding it to be an abuse of process and vexatious.

The court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The statement of claim arose from a slip and fall at a Beer Store but included wild conspiracy allegations against numerous public figures and institutions.

The court found the lawsuit could not succeed and was frivolous on its face.

The action was dismissed against all defendants except The Beer Store and the City of Toronto, and the plaintiff was granted leave to deliver an amended statement of claim limited to the slip and fall accident.

The respondent brought a motion on the eve of trial to amend his answer to add a claim for an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing it would cause prejudice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendment was untenable as it lacked factual particulars to meet the exceptionally high burden for unequal division.

Furthermore, the court held that allowing the amendment at such a late stage would cause disadvantage to the applicant that could not be compensated by an adjournment or costs, and undermined the case management objectives of the Family Law Rules.

Following a family law trial, both self-represented parties sought costs.

The applicant sought $57,572.50 and the respondent sought $40,000.

The court found that success was equally divided: the respondent was fully successful on child-related issues, while the applicant was fully successful on economic issues.

Because both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour, breached court orders, and failed to encourage settlement, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion where the respondent was found to have inappropriately moved assets and failed to fulfill disclosure obligations.

The court declined to award enhanced costs based on the applicant's late offer to settle.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct in failing to make timely disclosure and attempting to shield assets from the proceeding.

Costs were fixed at $58,000.

The applicants, a trustee and a family trust, brought an action alleging assets were improperly taken from the trust by the respondent.

The court reviewed the matter to determine if it was frivolous or vexatious.

Finding that the action was brought by a separate party from related family proceedings and may contain a core cause of action, the court lifted the stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and ordered the respondent to deliver a statement of defence or a motion to strike.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim and found it appeared to be a collateral attack on a prior judgment and an abuse of process.

The court directed the Registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1 and stayed the action pending the resolution of the inquiry.

The defendant requested that the registrar refer the plaintiff's action to the court under Rule 2.1.01(6).

The court found the statement of claim to be gibberish characteristic of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants, noting it did not even mention the defendant.

The court directed the registrar to send a notice to the plaintiff providing one opportunity to explain why the action should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the action pending further order.

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted that an identical claim against the defendant had already been dismissed by another judge for failure to comply with a court order.

Finding that re-litigating the same issues constitutes an abuse of process, the court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff that it is considering dismissing the action, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The Attorney General of Canada requested that the plaintiff's statement of claim be referred to the court under Rule 2.1.01(6) to be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged medical malpractice and sought Charter remedies arising from his arrest and incarceration.

The court declined to issue a notice to dismiss the action, finding that while the pleading required work, a claim for failure to provide medical care to a prisoner is not necessarily frivolous on its face.

The decision was made without prejudice to the defendants bringing formal motions to strike.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the WSIB and WSIAT regarding an unsuccessful worker's compensation claim.

The court noted that Ontario law does not permit a claimant to sue the WSIB or the Tribunal when a claim is disallowed.

Finding the action frivolous, the court applied the abbreviated process under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed the action with costs.

The self-represented plaintiff filed a 400-page Statement of Claim alleging medical malpractice resulting in his wife's death.

The court found the pleading unintelligible and potentially frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court stayed the action under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.

The plaintiff brought an application appearing to invoke section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, despite not being subject to a section 140(1) order.

The court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, noting that the subject matter had already been decided against the plaintiff and a previous attempt to re-litigate the case had also been dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his former spouse and a bank.

The court summarily dismissed the action as an abuse of process, finding it was a clear attempt to re-litigate a prior family law decision and that adding the bank as a defendant was vexatious.

The defendants sought over $20,000 in costs after successfully obtaining directions to defer the plaintiffs' proposed summary judgment motion.

The costs claimed related to the motion itself and various informal appearances, including Case Conferences and Civil Practice Court.

The court denied costs for the Case Conferences, emphasizing that costs consequences for informal appearances should be rare to encourage access to justice and efficiency.

The costs of the motion itself were reserved to the judge who finally disposes of the action.

The defendants sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The court previously directed the registrar to send a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff, allowing her to file written submissions.

The plaintiff requested an extension of time and a higher page limit, alleging collusion between the Attorney General and the court.

The court denied the request for a higher page limit, noting that Rule 2.1 is designed for summary dismissal based on the face of the pleadings and that a 10-page limit is sufficient.

However, the court granted an extension of time for the plaintiff to file her submissions.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order for equalization and child support.

The court reviewed the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules to determine if it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Noting the applicant's extensive history of non-compliance with court orders, including a recent finding of fraudulent conveyance to avoid his obligations, the court found the motion had no chance of success.

The court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process, holding that the applicant must comply with outstanding orders before seeking relief.