Not listed

The court issued a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff regarding a Statement of Claim that consisted of a single paragraph seeking to protect a future right to sue.

The plaintiff failed to respond.

The court dismissed the claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as it was devoid of any discernable legal cause of action.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing her claim under Rule 2.1.01(1) to the Divisional Court.

The defendants requested the appeal be dismissed under the same rule.

The court quashed the appeal on its own motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the damages claimed exceeded the $50,000 limit for Divisional Court appeals under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which stemmed from alleged mistreatment at the plaintiff's government employment and her union's failure to advance her cause, was found to be patently non-justiciable and bore the hallmarks of a querulant litigant.

The court concluded the claim appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process with no chance of success.

Consequently, the court stayed the action and directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which alleged mistreatment by security guards during the plaintiff's removal from her employer's premises, was found to bear the hallmarks of a querulant litigant and appeared frivolous with no chance of success.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of a written hearing.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, which alleged mistreatment by the plaintiff's union, appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and bore the hallmarks of a querulant litigant.

The court noted that the bulk of the complaints would fall within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action, stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing, and prohibited further filings other than the plaintiff's written submissions.

The applicant, previously convicted of defrauding the Ontario Student Loan Program, sought the return of funds garnished by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The CRA had garnished funds seized under Mareva injunctions obtained by banks.

The court noted that the CRA proceeded under valid Federal Court process and that a previous court order had already recognized the CRA's claims.

Finding that the application appeared to be an abuse of process attempting to re-litigate determined matters, the court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the applicant to explain why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant, previously convicted of defrauding the Ontario Student Loan Program, sought the return of funds garnished by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The CRA had garnished funds seized under Mareva injunctions obtained by banks.

The court noted that the CRA proceeded under valid Federal Court process and that a previous court order had already recognized the CRA's claims.

Finding that the application appeared to be an abuse of process attempting to re-litigate determined matters, the court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 requiring the applicant to explain why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary an earlier order dismissing his application for judicial review as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent City of Toronto sought to quash the motion, arguing there was no jurisdiction for a panel of the Divisional Court to review the order.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that an order under Rule 2.1 is made by 'the court' on its own initiative, not by a judge on a motion, and therefore s. 21(5) does not apply.

The motion to vary was dismissed as being without merit and an abuse of process.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding rent arrears.

The Registrar issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appellant acknowledged the underlying eviction issue was moot because she paid the arrears, but asserted she should be entitled to the costs of the appeal.

The court held that seeking costs on a moot appeal is not frivolous or vexatious, and directed the appeal to be listed for a hearing solely on the issue of costs.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an action against the defendant without obtaining the required leave of the court.

Pursuant to the mandatory terms of Rule 2.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court summarily dismissed the action.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a full indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an action against the defendant without obtaining the required leave of the court.

Pursuant to the mandatory terms of Rule 2.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court summarily dismissed the action.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review seeking $1,800,000 in damages.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(1) considering dismissal of the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant filed submissions expressing dissatisfaction with the court.

The court dismissed the application, noting that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to grant damages on an application for judicial review and that this was one of approximately 15 proceedings the applicant had commenced in the last three years.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff commenced a third identical action against the defendant for the same claims and relief, after the first two were dismissed.

The court dismissed the action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process on its face, without requiring further notice to the plaintiff.

The court also invoked its inherent jurisdiction and Rule 1.05 to prohibit the plaintiff from commencing further actions against the defendant or Economical Mutual Insurance Company without first paying outstanding costs awards and obtaining leave of the court.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim and found it appeared to be a collateral attack on a prior judgment and an abuse of process.

The court directed the Registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1 and stayed the action pending the resolution of the inquiry.

The applicant brought motions under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review and set aside a Superior Court judge's costs order and an order finalizing the text of a decision made on appeal from a Master.

The court found that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the costs order or to reconsider the finalization of the order under section 21(5).

The proceeding was quashed as vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim and found it appeared to be a collateral attack on a prior judgment and an abuse of process.

The court directed the Registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1 and stayed the action pending the resolution of the inquiry.