Abuse of process

The court addressed two competing motions arising from overlapping proceedings: an application commenced by 9165-6462 Quebec Inc. in Sudbury seeking enforcement of a Transfer Agreement and declarations regarding share ownership, and an action commenced by the plaintiff in Cochrane seeking declarations that the Transfer Agreement is void and that he remains the owner of shares in the DJB companies.

The plaintiff sought to consolidate the proceedings and transfer them to Cochrane, while 9165 Inc. sought to stay or dismiss the action in favour of the application.

The court found that permitting the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and an improper collateral attack on a prior judicial order declining to transfer the application.

The court stayed the action against 9165 Inc. pending resolution of the application and dismissed the consolidation motion without prejudice.

A land developer appealed the dismissal of his civil action against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process.

The developer had sought site plan approval and variance applications for a property development, all of which were denied through administrative processes including the Committee of Adjustment and the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Rather than pursuing judicial review, the developer sued the City alleging impropriety and misconduct, seeking damages and costs.

The motion judge dismissed the action as a collateral attack on administrative decisions and refused leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reviewable error and no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision to refuse amendment.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for abuse of process, arguing that the prior decision in Leavens v. Schwartz (the "Shotgun Decision") had finally disposed of the matter.

The plaintiff sought to challenge a buy/sell transaction that had been enforced by the court, alleging that the defendants had engaged in a secret investment arrangement with third-party financiers without disclosure.

The court found that the claim constituted an abuse of process because the underlying subject matter was identical to the prior proceeding, the issues could have been raised before the prior judge, and the plaintiff was essentially seeking to undo a final court decision with which he was dissatisfied.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer.

The defendant's Statement of Defence had been struck in August 2022 due to the defendant's delaying tactics and misconduct.

The defendant appealed unsuccessfully and sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which was also denied.

The defendant subsequently attempted to file a factum in response to the default judgment motion.

The court initially granted default judgment in the amount of $170,415.42 plus costs and disbursements.

Upon learning that the defendant's materials had not been before the court, the judge temporarily vacated the endorsement to consider the defendant's request for leave to make submissions.

The court ultimately dismissed the defendant's request for leave and reinstated the default judgment, finding that permitting submissions would constitute an abuse of process given the defendant's extensive history of delay, misconduct, and unsuccessful appeals.

The appellants sought to advance a new theory regarding a 15-degree bend in the property boundary line between their lot and the respondent's lot on Jack Lake.

This theory was based on new expert evidence obtained after the Court of Appeal's 2020 decision, which had remitted the matter back to the Superior Court to determine the location of the water's edge in 1902 and related issues.

The motion judge dismissed the appellants' second application as a collateral attack on the 2020 order.

The Court of Appeal upheld this dismissal, finding the second application constituted an abuse of process because the bend theory could and should have been raised in the original application.

The court also rejected the appellants' alternative motion to vary the 2020 order.

The accused was charged with murder and brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on late disclosure and abuse of process.

The Crown failed to disclose critical DNA evidence identifying the victim's brother's DNA on a mask recovered at the scene, which had been in police possession since January 7, 2025, but was not disclosed until September 9, 2025, on the eve of trial.

Additionally, the Crown failed to timely disclose cell tower evidence and corresponding witness statements necessary to establish the accused's identity as the suspect.

The court found serious violations of the accused's section 7 Charter rights and determined that the Crown's pattern of negligence, apathy, and late preparation constituted an abuse of process that undermined the integrity of the justice system.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the only appropriate remedy.

The moving party sought to review the Court of Appeal's dismissal of her appeal from a Superior Court order that struck her claim as an abuse of process.

The original claim arose from a 2018 administrative error by Service Ontario that erroneously transferred registered vehicle ownership.

The moving party's motion under Rule 59.06 alleged that the panel made false statements and that one panel member was biased.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the moving party had already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In this uncontested family law trial, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the child, a final restraining order against the respondent, retroactive and prospective child support with imputed income, section 7 expense contributions, occupation rent, defamation damages, and restrictions on future proceedings.

The respondent's pleadings had been struck due to his pattern of non-compliance with court orders, abusive and threatening behaviour toward the applicant and child, and abuse of the court process.

The respondent engaged in domestic violence, property destruction, harassment through social media, and defamatory posts.

The court found the respondent's conduct reprehensible and relentless, warranting comprehensive protective orders and financial remedies.

The defendant brought a motion to amend its statement of defence to add counterclaims against the plaintiffs, their counsel, and a court reporting service.

The counterclaims alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, abuse of process, invasion of privacy, and other causes of action arising from alleged misrepresentation regarding document service and the billing of discovery examination fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaims did not advance legally tenable causes of action and that the issues raised were not properly the subject of a counterclaim in this proceeding.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The moving party sought security for costs in relation to pending motions brought by the responding party in bankruptcy and related proceedings.

The court found that there were outstanding unpaid costs awards totaling over $41,000 against the responding party.

While declining to order security for costs, the court imposed a condition that the responding party must pay the outstanding costs awards by a specified deadline or face automatic dismissal of the motion.

The court found that the responding party's arguments deserved consideration on their merits and were not frivolous or vexatious.

A paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario systematically filed over 220 meritless appeals following guilty pleas to Highway Traffic Act offences.

The appeals were filed with no intention to proceed and were designed to exploit regulatory provisions that prevent recording of convictions and demerit points on driving records until appeals are sustained.

By filing appeals within the 30-day window and allowing them to languish, the paralegal effectively delayed the accrual of demerit points for two years from the offence date, thereby circumventing the demerit point system.

The court dismissed all 242 appeals (including 18 filed by an unidentified entity called "Traffic Tasks Legal") as abandoned and not proceeded with, finding the conduct constituted an abuse of the appeal process.

The plaintiff hired the defendants to convert a carport into an enclosed garage for $62,000.

The defendants falsely represented that no building permit was required and that the work would comply with applicable codes.

The structure was built without a permit and was structurally deficient.

Upon inspection by a professional engineer, the structure was found to be unfit for purpose and was demolished.

The defendants failed to appear at trial after initially retaining counsel and preparing responding material.

The court struck the defence and proceeded with an uncontested trial.

Judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiff for the full contract price, demolition costs, engineering fees, and damages for inconvenience and interference with use of property.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order declaring the applicant, as trustee for a bankrupt individual, and/or the bankrupt individual, to be vexatious litigants requiring leave to commence further court actions.

The respondent also sought dismissal of the applicant's application to enforce a foreign judgment as frivolous, vexatious, or without merit.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no evidence that the applicant was a vexatious litigant or that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court emphasized that the applicant, as a court-appointed trustee in bankruptcy, occupied a distinct legal position from the bankrupt individual and that the respondent's arguments regarding the merits of the underlying application were better addressed at the hearing of the application itself.

The court dismissed an action brought by self-represented plaintiffs under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim contained disjointed allegations of fraud, defamation, and discriminatory practices without articulating any legally recognized cause of action or providing particulars to support the claims.

The pleading included inflammatory references to serious crimes, exaggerated damage claims, and unexplained attachments.

The court found the action incapable of success and riddled with hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The defendant brought a motion seeking leave to quash Rule 39.03(1) examinations of its representatives that the plaintiff sought to conduct in response to the defendant's motion to stay the plaintiff's underlying lien action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking leave to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the defendant.

The court granted leave for the defendant's motion to quash but dismissed the motion on the merits, finding that the plaintiff had established a reasonable evidentiary basis for the examinations and that the proposed witnesses were in a position to provide relevant evidence.

The court denied leave for the plaintiff's cross-motion.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's motion to change and to prohibit further motions without leave of court and security for costs.

The applicant sought dismissal of the respondent's motion and leave to proceed with her motion to change.

The court found that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with court orders requiring leave before bringing motions to change, had engaged in abuse of process through relitigation of settled issues, and lacked credibility.

The court struck the applicant's motion to change, dismissed her request for leave, and dismissed the respondent's request for security for costs, finding that existing leave requirements were sufficient safeguards.

The defendant Gowling WLG brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff sought to challenge the conduct of Gowling in representing Home Trust in a prior mortgage action that resulted in summary judgment against the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim against Gowling was a collateral attack on the prior judgment, that Gowling was protected by absolute privilege, that Gowling owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, and that commencing an action against opposing counsel constitutes an abuse of process.

The action against Gowling was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for a vexatious litigant order against the plaintiffs pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion was initiated under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the procedural requirements of Rule 2.2 had not been properly followed, with the matter languishing for months without the mandatory initial review.

The judge conducted the required initial review and determined that sufficient indications of potential vexatious litigation existed to warrant a hearing under Rule 2.2.07.

The judge ordered that the hearing proceed in writing and imposed a stay of the current proceeding and prohibition on further motions pending determination of the vexatious litigant motion.

A residential tenant sued his landlord and pest control contractor for $600,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages arising from a bedbug infestation and alleged negligent application of insecticide.

The tenant also claimed $6,000 for an alleged unlawful security deposit and $7,170.01 for hotel stays and cleaning services.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for claims under $35,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the tenant's maximum recoverable damages could not exceed the LTB's monetary jurisdiction.

The plaintiff's action for $3.13 million in damages for "humiliation" and "aggravation" arising from debt collection efforts was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court had previously stayed the proceeding pending a response from the plaintiff regarding the contemplated dismissal, but no response was received.

The alleged misconduct related to a debt already subject to a previously dismissed proceeding, reinforcing the court's finding of abuse of process.