Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Juriansz, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.
Between
J. Gardner Hodder and J. Gardner Hodder, A Professional Corporation
Applicants (Respondents)
and
Alvin Lindhorst
Respondent (Appellant)
Counsel:
Robert Maki, for the appellant
Brian A. Pickard, for the respondents
Heard and released orally: January 8, 2016
On appeal from the order of Justice Brian W. Abrams of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 20, 2015.
ENDORSEMENT
1This is an appeal from an order finding the appellant to be a vexatious litigant. On appeal, the appellant argues he was not accorded the right to be heard, in that the application judge denied him standing and ejected him from the courtroom, and that the application judge failed to make allowances for his debilitating medical illness. In his factum, he also argued that the application was brought in an inconvenient location that prevented him from having the benefit of representation. Finally, he points out that he has enjoyed some success in litigation.
2We would not give effect to any of the appellant’s arguments. The application judge was entitled to refuse the appellant’s standing at the hearing because he had failed to comply with the earlier peremptory order of Tausendfreund J., that unless he filed an appearance and responding material by specified dates, he would not have standing at the hearing. The appellant also repeatedly disrupted the hearing and made abusive comments to the judge and the judge was entitled to have him escorted from the courtroom. We see no error in denying him standing and having him ejected from the courtroom. If anything, his behaviour at the hearing demonstrated his vexatious manner of conducting proceedings.
3The appellant’s illness is not a relevant factor. His illness has not prevented him from being able to initiate and participate in a myriad of proceedings. There is no evidence it disabled him from responding to this application. Certainly, his illness does not entitle him to institute vexatious proceedings and obligate the court to tolerate his abusive behaviour towards other parties. In any event, the record shows he received a number of indulgences from the court, including by Tausendfreund J., whose eventual order he failed to comply with.
4We do not accept that Belleville, where the application was returnable, was an inconvenient location to the appellant. He lives in Bancroft in the Belleville judicial district and he has repeatedly used the court in Belleville to bring meritless actions. The argument that the appellant was unrepresented because the hearing was in Belleville is unsupported by the evidence.
5The minor and occasional success the appellant has enjoyed does not detract from his long history of instituting multiple and meritless proceedings and his vexatious manner of conducting them.
6The appeal is dismissed. The respondents’ costs are fixed in the amount of $6,000 all inclusive. The appellant will have 120 days to pay the costs.
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”
