Kyle Shimon

The appellant, Trevor Goble, appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

He argued the motion judge erred in assessing evidence, credibility findings, and that Marie Pyper lacked authority to bring the application for Onyx Community Services, and that there were no prior matters to support the finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of principles or assessment of evidence, including the appellant's long history of vexatious proceedings.

The court also found the application was properly authorized.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis, deeming the appeal frivolous and vexatious.

The applicants, Marie Pyper and Onyx Community Services, sought a declaration that Trevor Goble is a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

They also requested an order restricting his ability to institute or continue proceedings without leave of a Superior Court judge, and a "Chavali order" requiring him to disclose the vexatious litigant decision when making complaints to administrative or regulatory bodies.

The court reviewed Mr. Goble's extensive history of repeated, dismissed, and abusive litigation against the applicants, their employees, and counsel, including actions filed after a release was signed and a consistent failure to pay costs.

The court found that Mr. Goble's conduct met the established hallmarks of vexatious proceedings.

The application was granted, declaring Mr. Goble a vexatious litigant, imposing the leave requirement for future court proceedings, and issuing the requested Chavali order.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicants.

The defendant, a not-for-profit community organization, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d).

The plaintiffs had previously initiated multiple unsuccessful lawsuits and administrative complaints against the defendant and its representatives, asserting similar claims of defamation, false arrest, and conspiracy.

The court found that the action bore the hallmarks of a vexatious proceeding, as it repeated previously dismissed claims, advanced claims with no prospect of success, and was brought for improper purposes.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed in its entirety, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendant.