Abuse of process

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order dismissing his action against the respondents (his former legal counsel) under Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process.

The appellant had alleged that the respondents failed to follow his instructions, misled and deceived him, and failed to provide competent legal services in an unjust dismissal case under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge found that the same issue had been previously determined by Adjudicator Monteith, whose findings were upheld by the Federal Court on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in dismissing the action as an abuse of process and affirming the costs award.

The moving party sought to reopen a Court of Appeal decision disposing of appeals concerning guardianship of an incapacitated person.

The moving party alleged that new information had been deliberately concealed, consisting of quarterly reports revealing a $43,000 payment to Section 3 Counsel for appeal work and a $442,000 transfer between accounts.

The moving party contended these payments evidenced an improper litigation agreement and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1.02 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding the information was not genuinely new and could not have affected the original decision.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his action against the respondent under Rule 2.1.

The Court of Appeal found that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the respondent and was plainly frivolous and an abuse of process on its face.

The court upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the Superior Court justice's decision to dismiss the claim without inviting written submissions from the appellant.

The court noted that even if written submissions had been provided, based on the appellant's factum and oral argument, there would be no prospect of a different outcome.

An appeal from a costs order against Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) as a non-party funder in a family law dispute.

The application judge found that LAO engaged in an abuse of process by failing to adequately monitor and assess the merits of the defence it was funding in a case involving a vulnerable individual.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the costs award, holding that LAO's role as a statutory funder does not expose it to non-party costs awards absent evidence of bad faith or improper purpose, and that requiring LAO to monitor litigation would impermissibly invade solicitor-client privilege and frustrate the statutory legal aid scheme.

The appellant appealed a conviction under the Provincial Offences Act.

On the scheduled appeal hearing date, the appellant's counsel requested an adjournment without prior notice to the Crown prosecutor, who had interrupted her vacation to attend.

The trial judge, of his own initiative, asked the Crown if it wished to apply for costs and ordered the appellant's counsel to pay $500 in costs personally, characterizing the conduct as showing reckless disregard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and vacated the costs award, finding that while the conduct was inconsiderate and worthy of adverse comment, it did not meet the high threshold for a personal costs order against counsel.

The appellant, a former employee of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, appealed an order from the Superior Court that restricted her ability to commence legal proceedings.

The order prohibited her from initiating or continuing any civil or criminal proceedings without prior authorization from a Superior Court judge.

The appellant had engaged in extensive litigation across multiple forums, filing numerous civil actions, private informations, and peace bond applications, all of which were dismissed or withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the restriction on civil proceedings under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act but struck down the restriction on criminal proceedings, finding that the Superior Court lacked the inherent jurisdiction to prevent access to justices of the peace for private informations and peace bond applications.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The motion judge found that the action amounted to an attempt to relitigate unsuccessful proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canada Labour Code adjudicator, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal, with bald allegations of fraud, obstruction of justice, blackmail, and criminal conduct lacking factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no merit in the appellant's three grounds of appeal: unlawful application of Rule 2.1.01(1), malicious use of language by the motion judge, and alleged infringement of Charter rights.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from an order striking out her statement of claim without leave to amend.

The motion judge had found numerous pleading shortcomings and determined the action constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant's motion for an extension was dismissed on the grounds of: (1) a lengthy and unexplained delay of approximately 10 months; (2) lack of evidentiary support for claimed medical impediments; (3) absence of merit to the underlying appeal; and (4) the overall justice of the case, particularly given the multi-year history of frivolous and vexatious proceedings by the applicant.

The appellant commenced an action in small claims court for breach of contract and subsequently filed a duplicative claim in superior court with additional claims.

The trial judge struck out the entire superior court action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1, finding that the appellant had not followed proper procedure to transfer the small claims action and was attempting to litigate the same matters in two courts simultaneously.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision.

A self-represented litigant subject to a vexatious litigant order sought a stay of that order pending appeal.

She brought a motion in the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking both leave to bring the motion and the stay itself, rather than following the prescribed written procedure under rule 38.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was dismissed by a Superior Court judge as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that leave to bring a motion for a stay of a vexatious litigant order must be obtained from the Superior Court in writing pursuant to rule 38.13, and that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant such leave.

The court rejected the argument that the right to appeal a vexatious litigant order without leave necessarily extends to seeking a stay of that order.

The appellant appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice that set aside a notice of default and dismissed her action against the Crown on the grounds of abuse of process and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant's action alleged that Ministry of the Attorney General employees misconducted themselves in relation to proceedings before the Landlord Tenant Board, Divisional Court, and Superior Court of Justice that had been decided adversely against her.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the action constituted an abuse of process as it represented an attempt to question the legitimacy of unfavourable proceedings, and that the appellant failed to plead the necessary elements of malice or intent to injure for the tort of misfeasance in public office.

A motion to re-open an appeal in a child protection matter involving a nine-year-old boy who had been in care for over six years.

The biological parents sought to re-open the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their appeal from a Crown wardship order made by the trial judge.

The parents had previously appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed their appeal, and then to the Court of Appeal, which also dismissed their appeal on its merits.

The motion was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The parents were prohibited from bringing further motions without leave.

The moving party sought reconsideration of the Court of Appeal's decision denying leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Small Claims Court judgment in favor of the responding party for basement flooding damages.

The moving party relied on alleged fresh evidence and allegations of fraud.

The Court declined to admit the fresh evidence as it failed to satisfy the Palmer test, finding that most matters were dealt with at trial and the evidence was not reasonably capable of affecting the result.

The Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, finding no basis to vary its earlier order.

The Court also granted an order prohibiting the moving party from bringing further motions without leave, finding the motion to be vexatious and an abuse of process.

The appellants sought extension of time to appeal provincial offence convictions for a parking violation and a red light infraction.

This was the fourth application for extension of time.

The appellants had repeatedly failed to appear at trial dates, appeal dates, and subsequent proceedings.

Previous applications had been dismissed as abandoned, and a prior judge had ordered that no further applications be filed without judicial leave.

The appellants did not comply with this order.

The court found the repeated filings to be frivolous and an abuse of process, and dismissed both applications with an order prohibiting further applications without prior written leave from a judge.

The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking arising from a reverse sting operation conducted by the RCMP in August 1997.

The appellant was initially acquitted in 2000, but the Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

At the retrial in 2014, the appellant sought a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process, alleging that the lead investigator deliberately misled his superiors and withheld disclosure.

The trial judge rejected these allegations and convicted the appellant.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, and dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the 10 years 10 months imprisonment and delayed parole eligibility were fit.

The accused pleaded guilty to making available child pornography contrary to section 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing hearing spanned multiple dates over three years and involved contested applications by the accused seeking a stay of proceedings.

The accused challenged the Crown's election to proceed by indictment and its pursuit of a sentence exceeding the mandatory minimum, arguing abuse of process and Charter violations.

The court dismissed all applications for stay, finding no Charter breaches or abuse of process.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (the mandatory minimum) with credit for time served at 1.5 days per day, followed by 15 months probation, and mandatory ancillary orders including DNA, forfeiture, and SOIRA registration.

The applicant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and cannabis marijuana while an inmate at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Center.

The central issue concerned missing video surveillance recordings of common areas within the facility.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of section 7 rights based on an unreasonable pre-charge delay and the loss of evidence.

The court found that the applicant's section 7 Charter rights were violated due to the negligent investigative approach and failure to preserve evidence, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a significant sentence reduction as an alternative remedy.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and seek costs on a full recovery basis due to the respondent's willful and repeated failure to obey numerous court orders.

The respondent had failed to pay child support, costs awards, and security for costs, and had repeatedly breached access orders.

The court found this to be an exceptional case warranting the striking of pleadings, with the exception of the respondent's claim for access, which was permitted to proceed with strict controls.

The order was made without prejudice to the respondent seeking reinstatement upon full compliance with outstanding court orders.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

The defendant corporation brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of section 11(d) rights based on an alleged promise by a Ministry of Labour inspector not to prosecute.

The defendant claimed the inspector's assurance, followed by the laying of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, constituted an abuse of process.

The court found that the defendant failed to establish a clear agreement or deal with the inspector, that the inspector's conduct did not rise to the level of abuse of process, and that no Charter breach occurred.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.