Not listed

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 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 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 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 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 Attorney General of Canada requested that the plaintiff's statement of claim be referred to the court under Rule 2.1.01(6) to be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged medical malpractice and sought Charter remedies arising from his arrest and incarceration.

The court declined to issue a notice to dismiss the action, finding that while the pleading required work, a claim for failure to provide medical care to a prisoner is not necessarily frivolous on its face.

The decision was made without prejudice to the defendants bringing formal motions to strike.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion to sever his claim for divorce from the applicant wife's claims for corollary relief.

The motion judge had refused severance on the basis that the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure prejudiced the wife, and that severing the divorce could cause her legal disadvantage by terminating her rights under the Succession Law Reform Act in the event of his intestacy.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the potential loss of estate rights and insurance coverage constituted valid legal disadvantages under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant filed an application to re-open a 2009 decision of the Court of Appeal and to file fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, nor the criteria for reopening a decision under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following the offender's conviction for procuring and exercising control over a prostitute, the court ordered a Pre-Sentence Report.

Quebec probation services requested a lengthy extension and communicated in French.

The court accommodated the delay by rescheduling the sentencing hearing but issued an endorsement ordering that the report be filed by the extended deadline and in English, as the trial was conducted in English.

The parties reached a settlement.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal without costs.

The accused, a seasonal worker and undischarged bankrupt, refused to accept a conditional legal aid certificate requiring him to make monthly payments of $300, believing he could not afford them.

The motion judge granted a Rowbotham order, finding the conditional offer tantamount to a denial of legal aid.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, holding that the accused's refusal to accept the terms of the certificate did not equate to a denial of legal aid, which is a prerequisite for a Rowbotham order.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The matter was converted into a motion by both parties to set aside the appealed order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, set aside the order below, and reinstated the original order.

The plaintiff appealed a master's decision regarding forum non conveniens.

The master had found that the contract underlying the claim was subject to Virginia law and the parties had agreed to Virginia courts for dispute resolution.

The Divisional Court held that the master did not err in law in addressing the test for 'carrying on business' in Ontario or in weighing the factors in favour of the defendant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appeals of an order by Farley J. The Court of Appeal determined that the order in question was interlocutory, as it merely postponed the appellants' entitlement to proceed with their counterclaim in Ontario pending the completion of United States proceedings, rather than finally deciding any issue against them.

Consequently, the appeals were quashed.