Abuse of process

The self-represented appellant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to stay a tax sale of his property and challenge a property tax assessment by MPAC.

The appellant had previously missed the deadline to appeal the assessment to the Assessment Review Board and had a related Small Claims Court action dismissed or stayed.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from MPAC, an out-of-time appeal from the ARB without leave on a question of law, or an appeal from an interim Small Claims Court order.

The proceeding was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Following the dismissal of an oppression application at the request of the applicants, the respondents sought costs and various other orders.

The court denied the respondents' claim for costs, finding that their conduct throughout the litigation had been improper, vexatious, and unnecessary, and that they were not the successful parties given an earlier finding of oppression against them.

The court also dismissed the respondents' requests for additional relief, including claims under the Human Rights Code and for restitution, as being outside the scope of the costs endorsement.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review regarding the revocation of her mother's short-term rental licence.

The mother was deceased, and the moving party relied on a power of attorney and a will to proceed.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to consider dismissing the proceeding.

The court found that the moving party lacked standing, a deceased person cannot hold a non-transferable licence, and the relief sought was unavailable.

The proceeding was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review and a writ of mandamus against the Attorney General of Ontario to challenge court orders made in a separate mortgage dispute.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the application was an impermissible collateral attack on prior court decisions that should have been challenged through the available appeal routes, the court dismissed the proceeding.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer subsequently initiated a priority dispute with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund and denied further benefits.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the insurer successfully moved to determine as a preliminary issue whether the appellant was an 'insured person', resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT's decision to proceed with the preliminary issue while the priority dispute was pending constituted an abuse of process, as it undermined the 'pay now, dispute later' statutory scheme designed to ensure continuity of benefits.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of their stored goods due to unpaid storage fees.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the extensive history of unsuccessful motions and appeals across multiple courts.

Finding the proceedings to be a collateral attack on previous orders and a blatant abuse of the court's process, the court dismissed the proceeding as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1).

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that they harassed the respondent tenant.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering dismissing the appeal for lack of grounds.

After reviewing the landlord's submissions, the court found that the appeal merely sought to re-litigate factual findings disguised as errors of law, contrary to section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board but later abandoned the appeal after securing alternative accommodations.

The landlord brought a motion for costs of the abandoned appeal, seeking full or substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the appeal was an abuse of process brought solely for delay.

The court found no abuse of process but held the landlord was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 61.14(3).

The court awarded the landlord partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of orders made by Superior Court judges dismissing his underlying action and awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review of a Superior Court judge's decision.

The proper route to challenge the underlying orders was an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB had ordered the tenant's eviction because the landlord entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a purchaser who intended to occupy the unit.

The tenant appealed on four grounds, including misnomer of the landlord, refusal of an adjournment, and the subsequent termination of the purchase agreement due to the tenant's refusal to vacate.

The Divisional Court found that none of the grounds raised a question of law and that the appeal was an abuse of process designed to game the system and frustrate the sale.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay of eviction was vacated.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion to review a case management judge's orders that required him to perfect his family law appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal for his failure to do so.

During the case management of the review motion, the moving party repeatedly refused to follow court directions, sought sweeping substantive relief beyond the scope of the review, and engaged in relentless debates with the court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the review motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, while also restricting the moving party's future access to the Divisional Court.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of an interlocutory decision that set aside an ex parte order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The court found that the moving party's underlying action was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior summary judgment decision regarding a defaulted mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and stay as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review of two decisions made by Superior Court judges.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 indicating the application appeared to be an abuse of process because the court lacks jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of Superior Court judges.

The applicant argued that her Charter claims superseded statutory jurisdictional limits.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the Charter does not expand the statutory limits of the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) dismissing her complaint against a police officer.

The applicant's complaint alleged identity theft, contamination of food, and other broad, speculative claims spanning over a decade.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the proceeding.

Finding the allegations lacked an air of reality and the application was an abuse of process, the court dismissed the judicial review application as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review against various police respondents and the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The respondents 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, noting that it does not have jurisdiction to award damages on an application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicant, an internationally trained legal professional, sought judicial review of the Law Society of Ontario's decision to refer his licensing application to a good character hearing.

The Law Society requested that the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the application premature, noting that the applicant could raise his procedural fairness and jurisdictional arguments before the Law Society Tribunal.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceeding, the court struck the application as an abuse of process.

The appellant attempted to appeal an interlocutory order without first obtaining leave from the Divisional Court.

A panel previously directed the Registrar to issue a Notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, advising the appellant that the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 to the respondent Police Services Board.

The landlord was previously successful on a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the tenant had issued the appeal solely to remain in the premises without paying rent.

The landlord sought costs of $10,746 on a substantial indemnity basis.

After considering the factors in Rule 57.01 and the tenant's failure to provide submissions, the court ordered the tenant to pay costs fixed at $8,500 inclusive.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct arose from profane and abusive comments the applicant submitted to an anonymous virtual suggestion box intended for EDI initiatives.

The applicant argued the process was an abuse of process due to entrapment and that his comments were protected by case-by-case privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Commission's application of the legal principles, including the test for privilege, as the comments fell outside the purpose of the suggestion box.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had failed to pay ongoing rent and lump sum arrears as previously ordered by the court, accumulating over $50,000 in arrears.

The court found it would be an abuse of process to allow the tenant to continue living rent-free and lifted the stay of eviction.

The court also granted the tenant a final 10-day extension to perfect his appeal due to delays in obtaining hearing transcripts.