Abuse of process

The applicant's driving instructor licence was revoked by the Ministry of Transportation after he was criminally charged with sexual assault involving a student.

Despite his subsequent acquittal, the Ministry maintained the revocation and required him to apply for a new licence, which it then denied.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the initial revocation decision was profoundly procedurally unfair as it failed to comply with the notice and response requirements of O. Reg 473/07.

The court further held that the subsequent re-application decision did not cure these defects, as it was irreparably compromised by the flawed revocation and improperly reversed the onus of proof.

The decisions were set aside and the licence was ordered reinstated.

The moving party sought to schedule a motion for interim relief, including reinstatement of workers' compensation benefits, in the context of an underlying motion for reconsideration of a dismissed application for judicial review.

The court found the motion appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02, as the underlying application had already been dismissed for delay.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the moving party to provide written submissions explaining why the motion should not be dismissed, and stayed the motion pending the outcome.

The appellant, a non-party principal of the plaintiff construction company, appealed a trial judge's order making him jointly and severally liable for approximately $579,000 in costs.

The trial judge found the appellant had engaged in gross misconduct, including lying under oath and forging documents to support an inflated construction lien claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised her inherent jurisdiction to award costs against a non-party whose conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The moving party sought to schedule a motion for contempt against her former landlord, alleging he breached a 2019 stay certificate.

The responding party requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1.02 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, noting the moving party had vacated the unit over two years prior and had commenced a civil action raising the same issues.

The court stayed the motion and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01, giving the moving party an opportunity to provide written submissions explaining why the motion should not be dismissed.

The appellant, a lawyer whose licence was suspended for failing to cooperate with a Law Society investigation, sought to appeal and judicially review a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division that denied his motion for a stay pending appeal and a permanent stay of proceedings for abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Appeal Division's decision was interlocutory and not a final decision.

The Court also dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the appellant must allow the administrative process to run its course and that his allegations of abuse of process did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting early intervention.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay of eviction.

The tenant had not paid rent for over a year.

The court found that while the tenant raised a legitimate issue of procedural fairness regarding his inability to participate in the Board hearing, the appeal was ultimately devoid of merit because he had no legal justification for the persistent non-payment of rent.

The court also found the appeal to be an abuse of process brought solely to obtain an automatic stay.

The appeal was quashed and the stay lifted.

The moving party brought a second motion under Rule 59.06 to reopen a 2016 decision of the Divisional Court that dismissed her appeal from a professional discipline decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting the motion appeared contrary to the finality principle and res judicata.

Finding the moving party's response asserting undisclosed 'new evidence' to be frivolous, the court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ordered that she be prohibited from bringing further steps without prior judicial permission.

The moving party tenant sought a stay of an eviction order pending a review of a previous decision that quashed his appeal.

At the outset, the tenant requested the presiding judge recuse himself based on a prior complaint made to the Canadian Judicial Council, which the judge declined, finding no factual bias.

On the motion for a stay, the court applied the three-part test and found that while the tenant would suffer irreparable harm, there was no arguable merit to the appeal because the tenant had failed to pay rent for a year, constituting an abuse of process.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review of two decisions made by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal over twelve years prior.

The Tribunal brought motions to be added as a party and to dismiss the application for delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to add the Tribunal as a party pursuant to section 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the twelve-and-a-half-year delay excessive, without reasonable explanation, and prejudicial to the Tribunal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Ontario College of Pharmacists Discipline Committee Panel, which had dismissed her motion to stay disciplinary proceedings for abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention, and the applicant would have the opportunity to raise her abuse of process arguments before the Discipline Committee and on any subsequent appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Justice of the Peace Review Council dismissing his complaint regarding a traffic ticket trial.

The court found the application appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, as it sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction and attempted to re-litigate the underlying trial.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed, and stayed the proceeding in the interim.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenants' application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The tenants had a history of failing to pay rent, breaching a consent order, and commencing multiple proceedings to delay eviction without appearing at hearings.

The court found the application was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to judicially review an order of a Superior Court Judge or the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were ordered.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of WSIAT decisions regarding claims previously pursued through multiple appellate courts.

WSIAT sought to be added as a party and to move to quash or dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The court scheduled a motion for WSIAT to be added as a party and to seek dismissal of the application.

The self-represented plaintiff persisted in pursuing two appeals despite the underlying dismissal order having been set aside.

The Divisional Court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the plaintiff to show cause why his appeals should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court also required the plaintiff to explain why he should not be precluded from further access to the courts without prior permission, noting his abusive communications and an action commenced against a Superior Court judge.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, was given notice that the court was considering dismissing his application under Rule 2.1.01.

Despite directions to provide a list of decisions he sought to review, the applicant responded with voluminous documents, abusive emails, and failed to state a case within the court's jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, without prejudice to the applicant filing a properly drafted notice.

The self-represented appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which had dismissed his appeal from the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding complaints against several doctors.

The ICRC and HPARB had dismissed the claims summarily as frivolous, vexatious, and related to faulty perceptions.

The Divisional Court directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01, giving the appellant 15 days to provide written submissions as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for the same reasons.

The respondent requested that the applicant's application for judicial review be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought declarations of criminal guilt, damages, and other extraordinary relief against the respondents, including the late Rob Ford and the Toronto police, alleging retaliation and wrongful arrest.

The court found that the Divisional Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief on a judicial review application.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant to explain why the application should not be dismissed and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent.

A prior court order required the tenant to pay $5,000 as a condition of hearing the appeal, which he failed to do.

The Divisional Court found the tenant was using the appeal process to live rent-free and dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process, lifting the stay of the eviction order.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant argued that the Committee erred in finding a physician-patient relationship existed and in refusing to quash a summons issued to the reluctant patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's determination of a physician-patient relationship was reasonable based on medical records, OHIP billings, and medical notes provided to the patient.

The Court also upheld the Committee's decision not to quash the summons, concluding that the College's broad investigatory powers and the public interest in prosecuting sexual abuse allegations outweighed the patient's privacy interests.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission refusing to investigate an incident from 2006 where the applicant's brother was tasered by police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion not to proceed with an investigation given the passage of time and the extensive airing of the issues in prior court proceedings.

The court also found no error in the Commission's treatment of the evidence or any basis for allegations of an improper purpose.