Legal Department

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a 16-page Notice of Application.

The City of Toronto, as the first named respondent, sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.03.

The court found that the applicant failed to follow the required procedure for vexatious litigants to seek leave to proceed, as established by a prior order.

Citing previous decisions involving the same applicant, the court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis to each respondent.

An appeal from a Justice of the Peace's order for destruction of a dog under the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

The appellant owned a dog that had previously attacked persons and animals, resulting in a control order.

The dog subsequently escaped and was found wandering loose in breach of that order.

The trial court convicted the owner under section 4(1)(b) of the Act (dog behaving in a manner that poses a menace) and ordered destruction.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial court erred in law by relying solely on the breach of the prior order to establish the menace allegation, without requiring proof of additional menacing behaviour on the date in question.

The court held that destruction is not available as a penalty for breach of a prior order under the Act, and that the statutory scheme carefully distinguishes between breaches of orders and original menacing behaviour.