Abuse of process

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking extensions of time to appeal several previous orders, including costs orders and dismissals of her actions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the appeals on the merits, which properly lay to the Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, the court found the proposed appeals lacked merit and noted the plaintiff's history of initiating a proliferation of meritless lawsuits using fee waivers.

The court awarded costs to the defendants and ordered that the plaintiff take no further steps in any proceeding until all outstanding costs are paid.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the respondent's wrongful dismissal claim.

The respondent, a former CSIS employee, alleged wrongful dismissal based on the revocation of his security clearance.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the CSIS Act provides a comprehensive administrative procedure for redress, precluding a civil action under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the respondent's claims for pre-termination salary and benefits were an abuse of process as they attempted to re-litigate issues already addressed through grievances.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which summarily dismissed his discrimination complaint against the respondent housing corporation regarding his eviction for rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be an abuse of process as the applicant sought to relitigate his employment termination and eviction, which had already been settled or decided.

The court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and entitled to deference.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $2,644.55 and barred from bringing further applications without paying outstanding costs and obtaining leave.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing a patient and revoking his license.

The appellant argued the defence of officially induced error, abuse of process by the College Registrar, and that the mandatory revocation provisions violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all substantive grounds, finding the sexual relationship was concurrent with the doctor-patient relationship and that the court was bound by Court of Appeal precedent upholding the constitutionality of mandatory revocation.

The court only allowed the appeal in part to vacate an order requiring the appellant to post security for the patient's potential future therapy costs.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of two Landlord and Tenant Board orders terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant for non-payment of rent.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's appeal raised no questions of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The court also noted that the appeal appeared to be a delaying tactic, as the tenant had not paid rent for several months.

The motion to quash was granted, the stay of enforcement was lifted, and the landlord was awarded costs.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside an earlier order of the Divisional Court that dismissed her appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The applicant claimed she failed to respond to the earlier notice due to insufficient notice.

The court accepted the lack of notice for the purpose of the motion but found the applicant failed to demonstrate any basis to set aside the order or show that the result would be different if reheard.

The motion was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an 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 landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to pay $25,000 in compensation for disposing of the tenant's property after an eviction.

The tenant had been incarcerated, and his parents attempted to pay rent, but the landlord refused payment and ignored their communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the landlord's conduct constituted an abuse of process was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The respondent employee was wrongfully dismissed and awarded damages in Small Claims Court.

The appellant employer engaged in years of frivolous and vexatious litigation to avoid paying the judgment, including multiple failed appeals and motions.

The respondent successfully garnished the funds after correcting a misnomer in the appellant's name.

The appellant appealed the misnomer correction and the refusal to return the garnished funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the misnomer appeal on the merits, declined to lift the stay of garnishment due to lack of financial hardship evidence, but ultimately dismissed the appellant's second appeal as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.02, thereby lifting the stay and prohibiting the appellant from bringing further motions without leave.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing the appellants' application as an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the appeal belonged in the Divisional Court because the original proceeding was brought under the Business Corporations Act.

The court determined that the 'lynchpin' of the underlying application was a claim for breach of a joint venture agreement, not a corporate remedy.

Consequently, the order appealed from was a final order disposing of contractual claims, meaning the appeal properly lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion to quash was granted.

The moving parties brought a motion to set aside a Small Claims Court default judgment arising from a motor vehicle accident and to reinstate a suspended driver's licence.

The court found that the moving parties had previously agreed to a consent order dismissing an earlier motion on the condition of a payment plan, which they subsequently breached.

The court dismissed the current motion as an abuse of process, noting that the responding party was acting within its rights under the consent order when it requested the licence suspension.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had not paid any rent since moving in and failed to comply with a Board consent order requiring payment of rent into the Board.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was completely devoid of merit, raised no genuine questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed solely to prolong a rent-free existence.

The motion was granted, the appeal was dismissed, the stay was vacated, and the landlord was awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed her request to add the University of Windsor as a party to her complaint against the Law Society, dismissed her complaint against the Law Society, and declared her a vexatious litigant regarding her attempts to pursue allegations against the University over her official transcript.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found that the HRTO had ample authority to control its processes and prevent abuse.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of several decisions relating to his 2003 dismissal from the Ministry of Environment, including decisions by the OLRB, the Grievance Settlement Board, and a Superior Court judge who dismissed his civil action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Superior Court's final order, which belongs in the Court of Appeal.

The Court also held that setting aside a private settlement agreement is not the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review, and that the OLRB decisions were both out of time for review and reasonable.

The application was deemed an abuse of process.

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.