Abuse of process

The plaintiff, Mihrali Celik, sought repayment of $240,000 USD allegedly taken by the defendants in 1995, along with damages and interest.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, arguing it was the third attempt to litigate the same matter, previously dismissed by two courts and the Court of Appeal.

The court found the claim barred by both issue and cause of action estoppel and as an abuse of process, striking the claim without leave to amend.

Costs of $13,000 were awarded to the defendants.

The court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the statement of claim and written submissions, the court found that the claim pleaded an arguable and discernable cause of action and should not be dismissed at this stage.

The court emphasized the robust gatekeeping function of Rule 2.1, but found that the statement of claim was not so devoid of merit as to warrant summary dismissal.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The court considered a motion by several physician defendants to have Kunal Tipu declared a vexatious litigant under section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed the history of Mr. Tipu’s litigation, including multiple duplicative and meritless actions, and found that his conduct met the criteria for vexatious litigation.

The court granted the order, prohibiting Mr. Tipu from instituting or continuing any proceeding in Ontario courts without leave, and dismissed several ongoing actions as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant, Alex Beseiso, brought an application alleging abuse of process and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application.

The court, proceeding in writing, found that all of the applicant’s allegations were manifestly frivolous and summarily dismissed the application.

The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Babos and R. v. Haevischer regarding the test for abuse of process and the standard for summary dismissal.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, whose license to practice law was previously revoked for professional misconduct, commenced a new action against the Law Society of Ontario and its counsel, alleging malfeasance in public office.

The court found that the action was a continuation of previously litigated issues and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious litigation, including repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already decided and naming opposing counsel as defendants.

The court also held that the defendants’ conduct was protected by absolute privilege.

The decision grants the motion of Saad Khalid S. Al Jabri for leave to issue a commission and letters of request to obtain evidence from witnesses outside Ontario for use at trial.

The court finds that the anticipated evidence of the proposed witnesses is material to issues in the action, and that the request is bona fide.

The ruling addresses the test for issuing commissions and letters of request, emphasizing the importance of a fair and full trial, and applies the test to several categories of proposed witnesses, including alleged co-conspirators, foreign officials, and counterterrorism experts.

The decision concerns a motion by Saad Aljabri and related parties for leave to issue a counterclaim in a complex civil action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaim for abuse of process and conspiracy was statute-barred under Ontario law, and that the applicants failed to prove that Saudi law applied or that any exception to the limitation period existed.

The court also found that the proposed claims for declaratory relief against additional parties were not supported by a tenable cause of action.

The risk of prejudice to the plaintiffs, including loss of the scheduled trial date and increased costs, further supported dismissal.

The court considered a motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim, which alleged a conspiracy by the defendants to cause the plaintiff to lose his business and property through the misuse of regulatory and legal proceedings under the Retirement Homes Act, 2010.

The court found that most of the plaintiff’s claims were barred as an abuse of process, collateral attack, or because they relied on inadmissible evidence under the Act.

The court also found that the claims did not properly plead bad faith or conspiracy with sufficient particulars, and that the statutory immunity provisions protected the defendants for actions taken in good faith.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety, with leave to amend denied.

The plaintiffs sought to pursue claims against the defendants in relation to a mortgage enforcement action that had already been decided in favour of the defendants.

The court found that all claims in the current action were either previously adjudicated or could have been raised in the prior proceeding.

The action was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, action estoppel, and abuse of process.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to plead a legally recognized cause of action or material facts to support a viable claim against the defendant.

The plaintiff did not provide submissions when invited to do so.

The court found the claim to be devoid of merit and an abuse of process, and dismissed the action without costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to articulate a legally recognized cause of action or material facts supporting a claim against the defendant.

The plaintiff did not provide submissions when invited to do so.

The court found the claim to be devoid of merit and an abuse of process, and dismissed the action without costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Shaukat Ali, failed to plead a cause of action or provide material facts supporting a claim against the defendant, Peel Police (11 Division).

The court found the claim lacked legal merit and reasonable grounds, and the plaintiff did not respond to an invitation to provide submissions.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The court considered a motion by the defendants to discharge the plaintiff’s construction lien and dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, or for delay.

The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff was a proper lien claimant, the nature of his relationship with the defendants (partnership or subcontractor), and whether the lien was properly quantified.

The court found triable issues on the relationship and quantification, dismissed the motion to discharge the lien, and imposed a timetable for the next steps in the litigation.

The applicant, Jerzy Szot, sought an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act declaring the respondents, Peter B. Cozzi and his professional corporation, to be vexatious litigants.

The application arose from a lengthy and complex litigation history involving Mr. Cozzi’s repeated attempts to access insurance proceeds and fees in relation to a former client, Mr. Nguyen, a party under disability.

The court found that Mr. Cozzi’s conduct, including relitigating settled issues, failing to pay costs orders, and acting against a vulnerable party, was vexatious and an abuse of process.

The court granted the order, prohibiting the respondents from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.

The plaintiff, Ahmad Mohammad, commenced an action against university officials and another individual, alleging privacy breaches, misdiagnosis, and conspiracy.

The court, on its own initiative following a referral, reviewed the statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to its lack of a plausible cause of action, absence of material facts supporting serious allegations, and the plaintiff's history of repeated meritless litigation.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide submissions, the plaintiff failed to do so.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The applicants, Ajitpal Gill and Gurvinder Kang, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged infringements of their rights under Sections 7, 9, and 12.

They claimed excessive force by police during arrest and a breach of their right to be brought before a justice within 24 hours as per Section 503 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while some police conduct was unprofessional, it did not amount to a substantial interference with the applicants' physical and psychological integrity, especially given the serious and dangerous circumstances preceding the arrest.

Regarding the 24-hour rule breach, the Crown conceded the breach, but the court found it to be technical and inconsequential, causing no actual prejudice.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs and a request for a leave order following motions to change a parenting order.

The applicant father's motion was stayed due to unpaid costs from previous litigation and was subsequently withdrawn.

The respondent mother successfully obtained changes to the parenting order and sought costs for the motions, as well as an order requiring the father to obtain court leave for any future motions.

The court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, finding the father's conduct unreasonable and noting his history of non-payment.

Furthermore, the court granted the leave order to prevent further abuse of process and protracted litigation, given the father's past behaviour and failure to comply with previous cost orders.

The father brought parenting motions, including a restraining order against the mother's counsel and an order to remove her.

The court dismissed the father's motions and granted the mother's, ordering supervised parenting time for the father.

The father subsequently brought two unsuccessful Form 14B motions.

This endorsement addresses the mother's request for full recovery costs, alleging bad faith by the father.

The court found the father acted in bad faith regarding his allegations against the mother's counsel and awarded full recovery costs for that specific issue, and additional costs for the other motions, totaling $10,000.

The court also considered the mother's offer to settle and the father's financial circumstances.

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga brought a motion to strike an application filed by Dufferin Construction Company, arguing it constituted an abuse of process due to multiplicity of proceedings.

The City contended that Dufferin's application, seeking payment of holdback monies, was subsumed within an existing, broader action (the 'Dufferin Action') between the same parties concerning the same construction project.

The court found that the claims in the application were inextricably linked to the factual and legal determinations required in the Dufferin Action, and allowing the application to proceed would risk inconsistent findings and undermine judicial integrity.

The court granted the City's motion, striking Dufferin's application without leave to amend, emphasizing the principle of avoiding multiplicity of legal proceedings.

The applicant, Clara Eva Boros, sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender her to Romania for extradition.

The Minister's decision regarding the significant delay in the extradition process, spanning over 18 years, was found to be unreasonable due to a lack of transparent investigation into when Romanian authorities became aware of the applicant's presence in Canada and an insufficient explanation for the delay on the Canadian side.

The Court of Appeal allowed the application, remitting the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration with specific directions for further inquiry and explanation regarding the delays.