Kevin Drizen

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

The application judge found that the individual appellant, who was the sole officer and employee of the corporate appellant, had serially engaged in vexatious litigation since 2017, including bringing proceedings outside the court's jurisdiction and failing to pay significant costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's application of the relevant factors and concluding that the order against both the corporation and the individual directing its litigation was entirely justified.

The court declared Glycobiosciences Inc. and Kevin Drizen vexatious litigants under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews a lengthy history of litigation by Glyco and Drizen, noting repeated unsuccessful actions, disregard for adverse rulings, and failure to pay costs.

The court imposed restrictions on their ability to commence or continue proceedings in Ontario without leave, and stayed all ongoing matters.

The reasons also address the legal test for vexatious litigant status and the balancing of access to justice with the need to protect the court system from abuse.

This is a panel review by the Ontario Court of Appeal of a single-judge motion decision that denied leave for a non-lawyer, Mr. Drizen, to represent the corporate appellant, GlycoBioSciences Inc. (Glyco), under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying appeals involved disputes over contracts with arbitration or forum selection clauses not favouring Ontario, and had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion judge had denied leave due to uncertainty regarding Glyco's financial position and concerns about Mr. Drizen's past conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Glyco's motion, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision, finding no error in principle, unreasonable result, or legal error.

The court reiterated that Glyco must appoint a solicitor within 30 days, failing which its appeals would be administratively dismissed, and ordered Glyco to pay partial indemnity costs to the responding parties.

This motion concerned an application by a non-lawyer, Mr. Drizen, for leave to represent the corporate appellant, GlycoBioSciences Inc., in an appeal, pursuant to Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding parties also brought a motion for security for costs.

The court dismissed the non-lawyer's motion for leave, emphasizing that corporate representation by a non-lawyer is exceptional and discretionary.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of establishing that leave should be granted, noting concerns about the corporation's financial affairs, past litigation conduct, and the non-lawyer's performance, which did not support an access to justice argument.

The defendant, Industria Farmacéutica Andrómaco S.A. de C.V., brought a jurisdiction motion to dismiss or stay the action commenced by the plaintiff, Glycobiosciences Inc. Andrómaco argued that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter, or alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens, or that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration in Mexico or Texas as per existing agreements.

The court found that no presumptive connecting factors to Ontario existed, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction.

Furthermore, even if jurisdiction were established, the court determined that Texas was the more appropriate forum due to specific forum selection clauses in the parties' agreements.

The court also noted that the Statement of Claim was improperly served.

The action against Andrómaco was stayed for lack of jurisdiction, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review to challenge the quantum of a costs order made against it on a jurisdiction motion.

The applicant had previously appealed the jurisdiction decision to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and rejected allegations of bias against the motion judge.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant failed to pursue its statutory right to seek leave to appeal the costs order and was attempting to re-litigate bias allegations already decided by the Court of Appeal.

The defendants, GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Almirall (Aqua Pharmaceuticals), brought a motion to set aside service of the Statement of Claim and to dismiss or stay the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Glycobiosciences Inc., alleged tortious interference and fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for any presumptive connecting factors (domicile, carrying on business, or tort committed in Ontario) to link the defendants to the jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court lacked a real and substantial connection to the action, set aside service, and stayed the action against both defendants.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.

The plaintiff corporation sued its former regulatory consultant and its directors for breach of contract, negligence, misuse of confidential information, and fraud.

The defendants moved to strike the claim and for security for costs, while the plaintiff cross-moved for leave to be represented by its non-lawyer director and for a mandatory injunction requiring the destruction of its confidential information.

The court granted the plaintiff leave for non-lawyer representation but dismissed its injunction request.

The court struck the fraud claims against all defendants and all claims against the individual directors without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action was pleaded.

The remaining claims against the corporate defendant were allowed to proceed, but the plaintiff was ordered to post $35,000 in security for costs due to its lack of assets.

The defendants sought costs of $35,000 all-inclusive after successfully bringing a motion to stay the action.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing it was excessive.

The court found the defendants were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and previous costs awards in similar litigation involving the plaintiff, the court awarded the defendants costs in the amount of $17,500 all-inclusive.