Harassment

The court considered an application by Donna Mary Whibbs for an order declaring Daniel Lee Dobson a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews the parties' history of litigation, including proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board, restraining order applications, and multiple Small Claims Court actions.

The court found that Dobson had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted litigation in a vexatious manner, primarily to harass the applicant and her counsel.

The court granted a tailored vexatious litigant order prohibiting Dobson from instituting or continuing proceedings against Whibbs and her counsel without leave of the court.

The respondent mother sought an interim restraining order under the Family Law Act and Children’s Law Reform Act to prevent the applicant father from contacting her and their three children.

The court found no evidentiary basis for such an order, noting that the father’s conduct—attending the children’s activities and attempting contact—did not amount to harassment or endangerment.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents’ involvement in the children’s lives and encouraged communication and counseling, ultimately dismissing the motion for a restraining order.

The applicant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 304, brought an unopposed application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, seeking to enforce the Act and its Declaration against the respondents, owners and occupant of a condominium unit.

The application arose from the respondents’ repeated refusal to allow access to their unit to investigate and repair a water leak affecting the unit below, as well as ongoing harassing and disruptive conduct by the occupant, Rick Goncza.

The court found the evidence uncontradicted, held that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and Declaration, and granted the orders sought, including access for repairs and a cease and desist order against Rick Goncza.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, jointly and severally against all respondents.

The plaintiffs, Athanasia (Soula) Bougiotis and CleanMark Group Inc., sought interlocutory relief against the defendant, Jamil Manji, including the return and deletion of confidential information, an injunction restraining harassment, and an Anton Piller order.

The court found that Mr. Manji, a former employee, had engaged in a campaign of harassment and misuse of confidential information after his termination.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald and Anton Piller tests, found a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The court granted the requested relief and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The defendant, Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG), brought a motion to strike four causes of action from the plaintiff M.P.'s Amended Amended Statement of Claim: negligent investigation, intrusion upon seclusion by way of vicarious liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and harassment.

The court granted OPG's motion, finding that the claims for negligent investigation and breach of fiduciary duty failed to meet the established legal tests, the claim for vicarious liability for intrusion upon seclusion lacked sufficient connection to employment, and there is no recognized common law tort of harassment applicable to the facts pleaded.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The City of Toronto sought an order declaring Shane O’Herlihy a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act due to his persistent and abusive conduct during litigation.

This conduct included sending numerous threatening emails and voicemails to opposing counsel and their families, and filing excessive and irrelevant court documents.

The court granted the application, finding O’Herlihy's conduct to be vexatious and an abuse of process, and imposed strict conditions on his future ability to initiate or continue legal proceedings, including requiring leave of the court and representation by a licensed lawyer.

The court also awarded substantial costs against him for the dismissed actions.

This is a costs endorsement following the respondent's successful motion for summary judgment, which dismissed the applicant's claims in their entirety.

The respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing the applicant acted aggressively and in bad faith.

The court found the applicant's conduct, including baseless accusations and attacks on opposing counsel, constituted bad faith.

Consequently, costs were assessed on a full recovery basis, though the claimed amount was reduced, and the applicant was ordered to pay $13,560 immediately.

The Applicant sought a permanent restraining order against the Respondent under section 46(1) of the Family Law Act, alleging reasonable grounds to fear for her safety due to the Respondent's harassing and irresponsible behaviour following the breakdown of their common-law relationship.

The Respondent argued he was a tenant, not a cohabitant, and resisted the order.

The court found the Applicant credible and the Respondent not credible, determining they were in a common-law relationship and that the Applicant had legitimate and reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

A permanent restraining order was issued.

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, appealed an order striking her statement of claim without leave to amend, which had been granted by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision.

The Court found no reviewable error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant's claims for constructive discrimination, harassment, professional negligence, and defamation failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court also upheld the denial of leave to amend, noting that the appellant had already had an opportunity to amend her pleadings, which resulted in unfocused allegations without evidence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, a police officer, sued his neighbours for intentional infliction of mental distress, defamation, nuisance, trespass, harassment, and malicious prosecution, stemming from years of escalating disputes including surveillance, false complaints to his employer, and a baseless peace bond application.

The court found the defendants liable for defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of mental distress, awarding the plaintiff $25,000 in general damages.

The court emphasized the flagrant and outrageous nature of the defendants' conduct, particularly their deliberate and continuous recording of the plaintiff, knowing his history of PTSD, and their malicious use of legal processes.

The appellant, Robert Collette, appealed a motion judge's order that, while striking out most claims under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, allowed a claim for harassment and intentional infliction of emotional harm to proceed.

The core issue on appeal was whether a successful s. 137.1 motion requires dismissal of the entire action or permits dismissal of only specific claims.

The Court of Appeal found that, based on the motion judge's finding that the entire action was motivated to silence public interest expression, the entire action should have been dismissed.

The appeal was allowed, and the entire action was dismissed.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2581 applied for various orders against a unit owner, Giovanni Paterno, due to his disruptive, aggressive, and non-compliant behaviour, including breaches of the Condominium Act, the condominium's declaration and rules, and workplace violence policies.

The Corporation sought declarations of breach, an order to vacate, and a forced sale of his unit, along with damages and costs.

The court found Paterno in breach of the Act and condominium rules due to his substance abuse-related misconduct, property damage, and harassment of staff and residents.

While acknowledging his remorse and efforts, the court deemed an immediate eviction too harsh.

Instead, it issued a conditional order: declarations of breach, orders for compliance, payment for damages and costs, and a conditional eviction/sale order to be triggered upon any future breach of the court's order.

This anti-SLAPP motion sought to dismiss a defamation counterclaim by Iron Horse Corporation and Robin St. Martin in the "Yates Action" and a separate action (the "St. Martin Action") for malicious prosecution and defamation against Robin Yates and Larry Yates.

The court found that the Yates' expressions related to matters of public interest, including gendered harassment by a powerful individual and the functioning of the justice system.

While the defamation counterclaim in the Yates Action was found to have substantial merit and was not dismissed due to the ongoing litigation, the St. Martin Action was dismissed.

The court concluded that the St. Martin Action lacked substantial merit, particularly the malicious prosecution claims, and was primarily strategic, with the public interest favoring its dismissal.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to partially stay an action initiated by two former civilian RCMP members, Francisco Chaves and Dayna Young.

The plaintiffs alleged abuse of authority, bullying, and harassment during their employment, particularly under Cameron Ortis, and unfair treatment after his arrest.

The Crown sought a stay, arguing that Mr. Chaves might be covered by a Quebec class proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant judicial economy, uncertainty regarding Mr. Chaves's inclusion in the Quebec class, and no real prejudice to the Crown if the action continued.

The court also noted that some aspects of the Ontario case might not be covered by the Quebec class action.

The appellant appealed a lower court decision that struck her claim, which alleged defamation, constructive discrimination, and harassment, without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the conclusion that the claim failed to provide adequate notice, clearly identify causes of action, or set out material facts.

The Court also deferred to the motion judge's refusal to grant leave to amend and the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondent sought orders for vacant possession of her solely-titled property and a restraining order against the applicant, with whom she had a past cohabitation and licensee relationship.

The applicant claimed an equitable interest in the property (unjust enrichment, constructive or resulting trust) and opposed the orders.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to continued occupation, noting his inconsistent evidence and failure to pay agreed-upon monthly contributions.

The court granted vacant possession to the respondent, effective April 14, 2023, with police assistance if necessary, and issued a restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act due to the applicant's disturbing and harassing conduct.

The applicants, co-executrixes of an estate, sought an order to withdraw the respondent's Notice of Objection to their appointment as Estate Trustees and to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing.

The court struck the Notice of Objection due to lack of supporting evidence.

However, despite the respondent's concerning conduct, including baseless claims, threats against legal professionals, and threats of violence, the court declined to declare him a vexatious litigant, finding his actions had not yet reached the persistent and unwarranted level required by the statute and established case law.

The court noted the recent nature of the respondent's actions and the importance of access to courts.

Costs incurred for estate administration were to be borne by the Estate on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent mother sought an order for costs against the applicant father for breaching a prior court order that mandated all communications between the parties be through counsel or a third party, limited to child-related issues, brief, informative, courteous, and free of derogatory comments.

The applicant sent numerous emails and text messages directly to the respondent and her counsel that were derogatory, offensive, and threatening.

The court found the applicant in clear breach of the communication terms, rejected his claims of frustration and misunderstanding, and awarded costs of $5,000 for the breach and $500 for the motion to the respondent.

The appellant, Wendy Sin Ming Ho, appealed the dismissal of her action against the Crown and four tribunals.

She alleged psychological harm from harassment and threats at an Ontario hospital (1999-2000) and subsequent failures by various tribunals to provide redress.

The motion judge dismissed her amended pleading, finding no vicarious liability for the Crown regarding hospital employment issues or quasi-judicial decisions, no Charter breaches, and no basis for a civil court to compel a criminal investigation by the RCMP.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error, no viable cause of action against the Crown, and that fresh evidence did not assist her claim.

The appeal and a motion to file fresh evidence were dismissed.

The appellants, condominium owners, appealed a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

The injunction restricted the male appellant's communication and conduct due to a long-standing pattern of harassment, rude behavior, and interference with the condominium corporation's board and employees, in violation of the Condominium Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's jurisdiction, the appropriateness of the injunction under s. 134(3) of the Condominium Act, and the fairness of the proceedings despite the denial of an adjournment and the appellant's failure to file a proper affidavit.