Abuse of process

This decision addresses the determination of costs following an omnibus judgment in a protracted family and civil litigation spanning ten years.

The court fixed costs for three main issues: a dispute with a bailiff, claims between the Applicant and the Respondent/his mother, and an action against Abrahams LLP.

The court applied both Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure principles, emphasizing that successful parties are entitled to costs and that egregious or reprehensible conduct warrants full or substantial indemnity.

The Respondent and his mother were found to have engaged in abusive litigation conduct, leading to significant cost awards against them, while the Applicant was ordered to pay the bailiff's costs for an improper motion.

The applicant, Stephane Gagnon, brought two applications seeking a stay of proceedings: one alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time, and another alleging abuse of process related to his return to Canada from Indonesia (argued as a "disguised extradition") and alleged misrepresentations at his bail hearing.

The court dismissed the s. 11(b) application, finding the delay was "Defence Delay" due to Gagnon being a fugitive.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process application, concluding there was no "disguised extradition" as Indonesia acted lawfully and Canada only provided logistical support, and that the Crown's statements at the bail hearing were not misleading.

The court found no breach of the applicant's s. 7 Charter rights and that a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

This decision provides case management directions in a complex, multi-action family law matter.

The court addressed the status of an appeal and enforcement of previous judgments regarding equalization and spousal support, noting that payments had been made.

It granted counsel's motion to get off the record and set a timetable for future motions concerning a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), leave to bring tort actions (abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering), and spousal support arrears.

The court emphasized that previously decided matters, including equalization, were final and not open for re-argument.

Strict communication protocols with the court were reiterated, with a warning against contempt.

The Applicant, Althea Reyes, sought certiorari in aid of prohibition to challenge a trial judge's decisions regarding disclosure and the introduction of her prior criminal record.

The Crown moved for summary dismissal of Reyes' application.

The court found that the alleged errors by the trial judge were not jurisdictional in nature, but rather discretionary matters within the trial judge's purview (e.g., length of adjournment for disclosure review, recall of witnesses, abuse of process, or mistrial applications).

The court emphasized that extraordinary remedies like certiorari are reserved for jurisdictional errors, not mere alleged errors reviewable on appeal.

Consequently, the court summarily dismissed Reyes' application, finding it manifestly frivolous as it was "obviously doomed to fail."

The City of Toronto, as the improperly named respondent, sought to dismiss the applicant's proceeding under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant's claim, while stemming from a driver's license suspension, also alleged broader issues including insufficient court staff assistance, lack of guidelines for administrative tickets, accessibility issues for persons with disabilities, and systemic discrimination violating human rights and the Charter.

The court, applying the standard that Rule 2.1.01(1) is not for 'close calls,' found the claim was not frivolous or vexatious on its face, despite raising complex issues of duty of care and proper forum.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and a case conference was directed for further submissions on the raised issues.

The plaintiff, a federally incarcerated offender, brought a motion for state-funded counsel and a cross-motion to dismiss the defendant's motion to strike his claim.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for counsel, finding no basis under the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Charter.

The court granted the defendant's motion to strike, concluding that the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, given the plaintiff's history of initiating numerous civil actions.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, a lawyer and his law firm, failed to file responding evidence, a factum, or appear at the hearing.

The court found the claim deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts for the pleaded torts.

The motion was granted, the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a substantial indemnity basis due to the frivolous and vexatious nature of the pleading and the plaintiffs' non-compliance with court orders.

The plaintiff, a self-represented lawyer, initiated an action against multiple defendants concerning a failed real estate transaction and a prior judgment that ordered the return of a deposit.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing it constituted an abuse of process, was frivolous and vexatious, and was barred by res judicata and collateral attack.

The court found the pleading to be a significant violation of pleading rules and confirmed that the issues raised had been previously decided.

Consequently, the defendants' motion to strike the statement of claim was granted without leave to amend.

Elijah Gilmore-Bent sought a stay of charges for possession of a loaded firearm, alleging violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter due to excessive force by correctional officers and a subsequent cover-up through false reports and testimony.

The court found that Officer Warburton's use of pepper spray was excessive and unnecessary, aggravated by Gilmore-Bent's 15-day segregation.

Furthermore, several officers colluded to write false use-of-force reports and provided dishonest testimony, indicating a systemic lack of oversight and accountability.

The court determined that no alternative remedy was sufficient and that continuing the prosecution would undermine the integrity of the justice system, granting a stay of proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment.

The court refused to hear the motion and temporarily stayed the action, citing the plaintiff's abusive conduct, which included unauthorized recording and posting of court proceedings, filing multiple duplicative actions across different jurisdictions, and improperly noting default against the defendant while a transfer motion was pending.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and ensure the efficient administration of justice.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff's counsel was in an incurable conflict of interest.

The court found the action to be an abuse of process due to significant overlap with other proceedings and the plaintiff's counsel's prior representation of one of the defendants as estate trustee, which provided access to privileged information.

The court concluded that this conflict created incurable prejudice.

The action was permanently stayed, and the plaintiff's counsel was removed from the record and prohibited from acting in any proceeding related to the estate where the defendant is a party.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave to continue a libel claim against the Thunder Bay Police Service Board and others.

The court dismissed the application, finding it an an abuse of process due to the applicant's non-compliance with previous court orders requiring leave to institute or continue proceedings and notice to the Attorney General.

Furthermore, the court found the libel claim lacked reasonable grounds, as the published reports were factual accounts of arrest and did not imply human trafficking or criminal organization involvement as alleged by the applicant.

The City of Ottawa brought a requisition under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss Michael Tardif's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Tardif's claim sought to quash a municipal by-law regarding garbage limits, without seeking damages.

The court found the action was improperly brought as a statement of claim instead of an application, exhibited characteristics of querulous litigant behaviour, and constituted a collateral attack on previous dismissals of similar actions by Tardif against the City.

The court dismissed the action, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and awarded costs to the City.

The respondent, William Fuhgeh, brought a motion to strike over 50 paragraphs from the applicants' affidavit and a portion of their Notice of Application in a vexatious litigant proceeding.

The applicants, Marie-Hélène Godbout and Marc Coderre, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, reiterating the principle that pre-emptive motions to strike affidavits are generally discouraged unless the material is clearly improper or would cause unreasonable effort/cost to respond.

The court deferred the questions of admissibility, weight, and relevance of the impugned evidence to the judge hearing the main vexatious litigant application.

The United States sought the extradition of Sabrina Elofer.

Elofer brought an application for extraordinary disclosure, leave to cross-examine police officers, and a stay of proceedings based on alleged abusive state conduct, which was dismissed.

Elofer then sought reconsideration of that decision, arguing she had not had a full opportunity to make submissions on all issues.

The court dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error in its prior decision and that the applicant's arguments had been sufficiently heard and lacked an air of reality to justify further proceedings or a stay.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision (2023 ONSC 1073) which dismissed an application and an action against the Attorney General of Canada, and struck out a statement of claim against the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) with leave to amend.

The plaintiff and Attorney General of Canada settled costs.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought partial indemnity costs of $2,127.50 from the self-represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to provide responding costs submissions despite multiple opportunities.

The court found the AGO was largely successful and justified in bringing the motion to strike.

The court awarded the AGO $2,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiff to the Minister of Finance for Ontario within 30 days.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3) due to pending related proceedings.

The court rejected arguments of res judicata and issue estoppel, finding no final determinations had been made.

It allowed the action to proceed against one defendant, Vilson Da Silva, as the claims were distinct and could not be brought in the existing lien action due to the Construction Lien Act.

However, claims against Leblon Carpentry were dismissed for lack of factual basis, and claims against Leblon Drywall were dismissed (without prejudice) as they were duplicative of an existing counterclaim in the lien action and contrary to the purpose of the Construction Lien Act.

To ensure judicial economy and avoid multiplicity of actions, the court ordered the transfer of a related Barrie action to Brampton and directed that all three interconnected actions be tried together or sequentially.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues in the administration of a deceased's estate, which has been ongoing since 2011.

The court convened a hearing to finalize the estate winding-up and payment of funds.

The primary issues addressed were the respondent's attempts to re-litigate previously decided matters concerning the sale of the estate's property and the identification of creditors, alleged errors in tax returns, and directions for payments to the accountant and Canada Revenue Agency.

The court dismissed the respondent's attempts to re-open issues regarding the property title and creditors, deeming them an abuse of process, and rejected claims of tax return deficiencies.

The court ordered immediate payments to the accounting firm for tax preparation and to the Canada Revenue Agency for taxes owing.

It also confirmed final adjustments to the estate accounts and set a timetable for costs submissions for various case management hearings.

The applicant, FUNG-BC Holdings Ltd., sought a bankruptcy order against Gary Man Kin Ng based on two outstanding debts: a $4 million guarantee and a $5.194 million IIROC financial penalty.

Mr. Ng disputed the guarantee debt, arguing it was covered by a prior settlement agreement and covenant not to sue with Bridging Finance Inc., and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The court found the settlement documents unambiguously excluded the $4 million loan, and while the IIROC debt alone wouldn't suffice, it could be considered alongside the valid guarantee debt.

The court dismissed Mr. Ng's motion and granted the bankruptcy order, finding he had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to meet significant liabilities.

The plaintiff, 2770095 Ontario Inc., a special purpose vehicle incorporated one day before the assignment, brought an action to recover over $1 million in alleged missing funds from payment processing, assigned from Affinitas Medios de Pago S.A.P.I de C.V. The defendants, Maxwell Dean Morgan and Tricia Edwards, moved to dismiss the action, arguing the assignment was invalid due to champerty and maintenance.

The court found that the assignment of tort claims was champertous, as the plaintiff had no pre-existing commercial or financial interest in the litigation and was created solely to pursue the claim for profit.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process and set aside all interim and interlocutory orders, including Mareva injunctions and certificates of pending litigation.