Abuse of process

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario regarding a freedom of information request for police records.

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.

The applicant's response failed to provide an arguable case or clarify the unintelligible grounds for relief.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision upholding a $17,500 costs award against him.

The costs were awarded after the applicant abandoned his third application for a paralegal license just days before the good character hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Hearing Panel retained jurisdiction to award costs despite the abandonment, properly considered the applicant's history of abandoning and reinstating applications as an abuse of process, and afforded the applicant procedural fairness.

The court fixed costs of the judicial review at $5,000.

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

The tenant had accumulated significant rent arrears and failed to perfect his appeal or pay rent since the termination order was made.

The court found that the notice of appeal raised no arguable grounds and was filed solely to delay eviction and allow the tenant to live rent-free.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, and the stay of eviction was set aside.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, brought an application for judicial review seeking $11 million in damages against her former family doctor for alleged failure to sufficiently treat a knee condition.

The applicant had previously complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which took no action, a decision confirmed by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

Neither the College nor the Board were named as parties.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently dismissed the application as fundamentally flawed and an abuse of process, noting that monetary relief is not available on judicial review.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside or vary an order of a judge that had quashed his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motion merely repeated arguments previously found to be devoid of merit and raised no question of law, the court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, brought an application for judicial review seeking monetary damages against a doctor following a dismissed complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding the application fundamentally flawed, as it sought monetary relief not available on judicial review and failed to name the proper respondents, the court dismissed the application.

The appellants commenced a medical negligence action in 2015 against the respondents, which was dismissed on summary judgment as res judicata because it duplicated a 2011 action that had been struck as statute-barred.

The appellants appealed the summary judgment dismissal.

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

Receiving no submissions from the appellants, the court dismissed the appeal, finding it was a clear attempt to relitigate claims, including fraudulent concealment, that were finally disposed of in the prior proceeding.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review seeking $1,800,000 in damages.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(1) considering dismissal of the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant filed submissions expressing dissatisfaction with the court.

The court dismissed the application, noting that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to grant damages on an application for judicial review and that this was one of approximately 15 proceedings the applicant had commenced in the last three years.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the appellant father's appeal of a garnishment dismissal order.

The father had a lengthy history of vexatious litigation, deliberately avoiding child support obligations, and failing to pay numerous prior costs awards totaling over $25,000.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to strike the appeal, awarded costs to the respondent, and ordered that the father may not bring any further claims or motions without leave of the court and until all outstanding support arrears and costs are paid in full.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review regarding his employment with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant was attempting to resurrect claims that had been fully resolved by a prior Memorandum of Settlement.

The settlement included a comprehensive release and a complete bar to any further proceedings, including judicial review.

The applicants brought a motion to extend the time to deliver a Notice of Appeal and for an interim order that the respondents pay $10 million US pending a reference hearing.

The court dismissed the motion to extend time, finding the applicants filed no evidence to satisfy the test for an extension.

The court also dismissed the request for an interim payment, noting that the applicant had previously sought the same relief multiple times, which had been dismissed as an abuse of process, and that the applicant was subject to an order requiring leave to bring such motions, which had not been obtained.

The appellant brought two appeals from the Landlord and Tenant Board and one application for judicial review regarding a Human Rights Tribunal decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals, which raised no questions of law, and lacked jurisdiction to award damages on a judicial review application.

All three proceedings were dismissed.

The tenant appealed a consent eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board on the last day before enforcement, triggering an automatic stay.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing it was devoid of merit and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the tenant was 'gaming the system' to avoid paying rent, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlord.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to lift the automatic stay.

The tenants had appealed the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, which they requested because their legal representative was unprepared.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, raised no question of law, and was an abuse of process intended solely to delay eviction while the tenants continued to pay no rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay was lifted.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision that permitted the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include extra-contractual misrepresentation claims despite an entire agreement clause, and refused the defendants' amendments pleading similar fact evidence of the plaintiffs' aggressive litigation history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly struck the similar fact pleadings as they did not constitute an affirmative defence of abuse of process.

The court also upheld the Master's decision to allow the plaintiffs' extra-contractual claims to proceed through the pleadings stage, noting that under the Tercon principle, such claims are not necessarily doomed to failure.

The Master's deferral of discovery planning was upheld as a reasonable exercise of discretion.

The applicant brought five applications seeking sweeping orders, including quashing judicial appointments, halting police promotions, and challenging the constitutionality of court rules.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the applications were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing and that the applications were based on hypothetical scenarios, the court dismissed all five applications as an abuse of process.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside orders of single judges that quashed his application for mandamus and allowed interveners to participate.

The applicant sought to compel three police forces to investigate alleged criminal conduct by the CN Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, affirming that mandamus does not lie to compel police to investigate specific crimes, as police discretion in such matters is not subject to judicial dictation.

The court also upheld the costs awards and strongly criticized counsel for filing voluminous, uncoordinated materials, citing the culture shift required by Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel that affirmed findings of professional misconduct and the revocation of her licence to practice law.

She argued that the Hearing Panel lacked jurisdiction due to improper transition from the old discipline regime to the new one, and that she was denied procedural fairness when refused access to an RCMP file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the transition provisions were properly applied, the appellant suffered no prejudice, and she failed to demonstrate the relevance of the RCMP file or overcome the doctrine of abuse of process regarding her prior litigation.

The Attorney General moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a motion judge's order refusing to consolidate a pharmacist's constitutional challenge in the Superior Court with his professional misconduct appeal in the Divisional Court.

The Attorney General sought to have the consolidated proceeding stayed and the constitutional issue remitted to the College's Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that exceptional circumstances justified allowing the constitutional challenge to proceed in the Superior Court, particularly given the Discipline Committee's inability to grant a general declaration of invalidity.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing its action under Rule 34.15(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for its representative's refusal to answer questions during an examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law and fact by concluding that the plaintiff's conduct was an egregious breach that prejudiced the defendants such that a dismissal was warranted.

The court held that the defendants' prejudice could be remedied by ordering the plaintiff's representative to re-attend the examination and answer proper questions, rather than imposing the draconian sanction of dismissing the action.