Abuse of process

The plaintiffs and the Trustee/Receiver sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-motion.

The court found that the respondent's conduct, which included an attempt to circumvent a settlement release and making serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the Trustee/Receiver and opposing counsel, constituted an abuse of process.

Applying the principle that reprehensible or outrageous conduct warrants elevated costs, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs were awarded $35,668.06 and the Trustee/Receiver was awarded $14,197.79.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a previous order that struck his statement of claim as an abuse of process.

The court noted that the plaintiff had already appealed the previous order to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal for delay and found the action devoid of merit.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the order, finding it to be yet another attempt to circumvent a court order and an abuse of process.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim and dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs had sued their mortgagees, mortgage broker, and solicitors, alleging collusion and a criminal interest rate after defaulting on their mortgages.

The court found the statement of claim was inadequately pleaded, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and could not be cured by amendment.

Furthermore, proceeding with the action would constitute an abuse of process as it would re-litigate issues already determined in a related mortgage action.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiff amended her statement of claim after the court previously declined to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01.

The amended claim added five pages detailing incidents that appeared vexatious on their face, raising concerns that the motions process would become a forum for abusive conduct.

On its own motion, the court directed the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff, indicating it was considering dismissing the action, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The plaintiff commenced two actions in Hamilton that were substantially similar to actions previously dismissed in Toronto as frivolous and vexatious.

The defendants requested that the Hamilton actions be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found that the actions appeared on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as they attempted to re-litigate previously dismissed claims.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the actions should not be dismissed, and stayed the actions in the interim.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence under Rule 57.03(2) for failing to pay a prior costs order of $22,000.

The defendant argued he was unable to pay the lump sum by the deadline but offered to make monthly payments.

The Master found that while the defendant had abused the court process by not raising his inability to pay earlier or making any voluntary payments, striking the defence was too harsh a remedy for a first-time non-compliance.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs order in monthly installments of $650, with the plaintiff awarded costs of the motion.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant brought an application seeking to rescind orders made by other judges in a different proceeding between the same parties.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant argued that he needed to bring a new proceeding because the respondent had requested an order restricting him from bringing further motions without leave in the other proceeding.

The court held that bringing a new application to circumvent a leave requirement or to re-litigate issues already resolved is a flagrant abuse of process.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The defendant Children's Aid Society submitted a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have the plaintiff's statement of claim dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff sought $65 million in damages regarding the defendant's conduct in aborted proceedings.

The court found that while the statement of claim was inelegantly drafted, it was not apparent on its face that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court declined to apply Rule 2.1, making no finding on whether the claim disclosed a cognizable cause of action or should be struck on drafting grounds.

The accused, charged with human trafficking and prostitution-related offences involving a 17-year-old complainant, brought pretrial applications challenging the constitutionality of the human trafficking provisions in the Criminal Code and seeking a stay of the prostitution charges for abuse of process.

The court dismissed the constitutionality application, finding that the human trafficking provisions are neither void for vagueness nor overbroad.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process application, concluding it was premature and lacked an air of reality that the accused could rely on exceptions under the new prostitution regime.

In a murder trial where self-defence was the central issue, the Crown removed four witnesses from its list shortly before trial because they possessed reliable exculpatory evidence.

The defence brought a motion to compel the Crown to call these witnesses.

The court held that while the Crown generally has discretion over which witnesses to call, the decision to exclude witnesses solely to withhold exculpatory evidence is a trial tactic reviewable under the court's trial management authority.

Finding that the Crown's strategy would adversely affect trial fairness, the court ordered the Crown to call the witnesses during its case.

The defendants requested that the court direct the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs claimed $10,000,000 for assault and battery, alleging police misconduct and a cover-up.

The court declined to issue the notice, finding that while the allegations might seem outrageous, there was no indication on the face of the statement of claim that allowing the normal motion process under Rules 20 or 21 to proceed would involve a risk of abuse.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's $10 million wrongful dismissal claim be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff alleged she was fired for complaining about being used to conduct fraudulent financial transactions.

The court declined to issue a notice under Rule 2.1, finding that the statement of claim, though drafted by a layperson, stated clear causes of action and did not present a risk of abuse that would preclude the normal motion process under Rules 20 or 21.

The moving parties (the Caribbean defendants) sought an order under Rule 57.07 directing that the costs of the action, previously awarded in their favour in the amount of $84,000, be made payable personally by the plaintiff's former lawyer on a joint and several basis with the plaintiff.

The underlying action had been dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior rulings.

The court found that the lawyer's conduct in drafting and advancing a vexatious claim with scandalous and unsupported allegations caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily.

The court granted the motion, ordering the lawyer to pay the $84,000 costs jointly and severally with the plaintiff.

The accused, a registered confidential informant, was charged with serious drug offences after receiving a package containing illicit drugs via a controlled delivery.

The accused testified they did not know the package contained drugs and had attempted to contact their police handler about their suspicions.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the Crown failed to prove knowledge or wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Alternatively, the court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, finding the police committed an egregious abuse of process by breaching informer privilege, involving the accused's handlers in the arrest, and releasing the accused into a dangerous situation to further the investigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim in a construction lien action.

The defendant had repeatedly failed to produce financial documentation relevant to its delay counterclaim, despite multiple requests and a court order, resulting in the adjournment of four scheduled trial dates.

The court found that the defendant's actions were deliberate and calculated to delay the trial on the merits.

Applying Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that this was an exceptional case where striking the pleading was warranted to protect the administration of justice.

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendant requested a review of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01(6).

The plaintiff sought bizarre relief against the government, including a job, a weapon, a stealth recording device, and $151 million in damages.

The court found the proceeding appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process on its face.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice of potential dismissal to the plaintiff and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The self-represented plaintiffs commenced an action seeking $939 million in damages, alleging a vast conspiracy involving artificial human reproduction, terrorism fabrication, and high-profile individuals.

The claim named a Superior Court judge who had previously dismissed their claims against a law firm.

The court initiated a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the plaintiffs' written submissions, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting it was a collateral attack on previous binding decisions.

The defendants by counterclaim, who were the plaintiffs' lawyers in the main actions, submitted written requests under Rule 2.1.01(6) to have the counterclaims against them dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff by counterclaim, a lawyer himself, raised various complaints against opposing counsel arising from a complicated real estate transaction.

The court declined to dismiss the counterclaims summarily under Rule 2.1, finding that while the claims might ultimately be defeated by absolute privilege, they were not clearly frivolous on their face and there was no apparent risk of a vexatious response to an ordinary motion to strike.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for $100,000, alleging that lifeguards ridiculed him for swimming too slowly in the fast lane.

The defendant's counsel requested a review under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found that the statement of claim appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the alleged causes of action provided no legal remedy for the discretionary exercise of lifeguarding duties.

The court stayed the action and directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the claim.