Abuse of process

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order regarding amendments to a statement of claim.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Noting the moving party's history of numerous dismissed proceedings and the fundamental flaws in the current motion, the court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.

The court also imposed terms requiring the moving party to obtain permission before commencing further proceedings or seeking fee waivers in the Divisional Court.

The tenant appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, resulting in an automatic stay of eviction.

The court directed the tenant to pay ongoing rent and a portion of arrears as a condition of continuing the appeal.

The tenant failed to make any payments and failed to perfect the appeal.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court found the tenant's failure to pay rent or move forward with the appeal constituted an abuse of process, quashed the appeal, and lifted the stay.

The self-represented appellant filed a motion for leave to appeal three Superior Court orders relating to costs and the discharge of construction liens.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the appeals lacked merit, the appellant had over $125,000 in unpaid costs orders, and the litigation history demonstrated a clear abuse of process, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and barred further motions until all outstanding costs are paid.

The court held a case management conference to address five appeals brought by a tenant against eviction orders for five different rental units.

The tenant had a history of seeking adjournments due to alleged illness while subletting the units for profit and accumulating substantial rent arrears.

The court ordered that two appeals would be dismissed as abandoned if not perfected, scheduled motions to quash the remaining three appeals, and ordered the tenant to pay all arrears in full as a condition of maintaining the stays of eviction.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent tenant's lease was residential, not commercial.

The landlord had locked the tenant out for non-payment of rent, claiming the Commercial Tenancies Act applied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord could not oust the Board's jurisdiction by unilaterally locking the tenant out.

The court further found no error of law in the Board's application of section 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act to ascertain the real substance of the transaction, despite the lease being labeled commercial.

The self-represented applicants brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board regarding a complaint about their father's death at a hospital.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting it was duplicative of a previously dismissed application.

The court found the notice of application failed to meet basic legal requirements, did not state proper grounds, and sought unavailable relief.

The application was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious on its face, with no costs ordered.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the OIPRD not to investigate allegations of police misconduct.

After repeatedly failing to provide meaningful grounds for review and attempting to relitigate a previously dismissed complaint, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.

The applicant responded with incoherent and vexatious motions, refusing to comply with court directions.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ordered that the applicant may not commence further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior judicial permission.

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

The tenant had refused the landlord access to the property, failed to pay rent since May 2021, and ignored a Board order to pay rent in trust.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, did not raise questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed to delay eviction and avoid paying rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the automatic stay of eviction was set aside.

The moving party sought a stay of two endorsements made by a case management judge pending a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The underlying endorsements had dismissed several of the moving party's appeals as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural decision of the Fire Safety Commission regarding jurisdiction and mootness, arguing that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario could review the Commission's decisions and that the Commission failed to accommodate her health issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, applying the principle of prematurity which precludes appeals of interlocutory tribunal decisions.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a Notice of Appeal from three interlocutory orders regarding his application to construct a religious memorial on his mother's grave.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Notice of Appeal under Rule 2.1.01 and struck it out as an abuse of process, noting that the orders were interlocutory and required leave to appeal, and that the appellant had failed to obtain leave to proceed under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant sued her former family lawyer for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to properly advise her regarding spousal support and business valuations when negotiating a separation agreement.

The motion judge stayed the civil action as an abuse of process, ruling that the appellant must first attempt to set aside the separation agreement under the Family Law Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Family Law Act is a complete code for spousal support claims and the civil system should not be used to circumvent the statutory regime governing matrimonial disputes.

The applicant, a medical resident, was suspended and required to attend a health program.

He unsuccessfully appealed the suspension through the university's internal processes before filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant had unfairly split his case.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review post-Vavilov and upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not unreasonable to find that duplicative proceedings regarding the same underlying facts were unfair to the university.

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal multiple orders.

The court allowed the motion for leave to appeal a 2020 costs order to proceed.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal a 2021 order as moot and an abuse of process, noting the moving party's abusive behavior towards court staff and relentless, meritless appeals.

The moving party's motion for the case management judge's recusal was also dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his application for income replacement benefits as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application after the appellant repeatedly failed to cooperate with an ordered independent psychological examination, including raising consent issues and threatening the psychologist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant's conduct constituted an abuse of process under its rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

A motions judge struck her affidavit containing evidence not before the HRTO and subsequently dismissed her motion to adduce further evidence as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The applicant brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside those decisions.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time and that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in applying the general rule against admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order dismissing the tenant's motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for over two years and breached a mediated settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was an abuse of process designed to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no questions of law.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Judicial Council, which had refused to consider his complaint against the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant alleged the Chief Justice committed misconduct by failing to act on his request to initiate criminal proceedings against a federal corrections official.

The court initiated a summary dismissal process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After dismissing the applicant's allegations of judicial bias, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the Ontario Judicial Council has no jurisdiction over core judicial decision-making.

The appellant insurer sought to appeal and judicially review an interlocutory evidentiary ruling by the Licence and Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that excluded surveillance video evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court held that the proceedings were premature, as interlocutory rulings in administrative proceedings should generally not be appealed or reviewed until a final decision is rendered, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to undergo a second specified continuous education or remediation program (SCERP) for ongoing medical record-keeping deficiencies.

The applicant argued the decision was an abuse of process and unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process despite a minor procedural fairness breach, and held that the ICRC's decision to escalate remediation was a reasonable and proportionate response to the applicant's persistent record-keeping issues.