Charles Painter

The applicant municipality sought to have the self-represented respondent declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and to dismiss his action under Rule 2.1.01.

The respondent had sued the municipality and police for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and false arrest following criminal charges against him.

The court declined to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant but struck out his malicious prosecution claims because the underlying criminal charges had not resolved in his favour.

The court also struck numerous scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the statement of claim, while allowing the misfeasance and false arrest claims to proceed under strict case management.

The respondent was found guilty of civil contempt for violating an interim order prohibiting him from communicating with the Town of Aurora and its officials pending a vexatious litigant application.

The court rejected the respondent's proposals to purge his contempt, finding he lacked insight and remained committed to his cause.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a fine of $1,500 and costs of $10,000, emphasizing the need for general and specific deterrence.

On a summary judgment motion by a municipality against a developer's crossclaim arising from a winter slip-and-fall, the court held the matter could be fairly and justly resolved without a trial.

The record established on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff fell on a private driveway rather than on the municipal sidewalk.

In any event, the municipality had not assumed the subdivision roads by by-law at the material time, so no statutory duty or liability under the Municipal Act had attached.

Contractual, nuisance, implied assumption, and by-law based arguments were rejected, and the crossclaim was dismissed.