Court File and Parties

CITATION: Susin v. Susin, 2009 ONCA 231

DATE: 20090316

DOCKET: C49258

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Moldaver, Gillese and Armstrong JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Fermino Susin

Applicant (Respondent)

and

John Susin

Appellant(Respondent)

COUNSEL:

Paul H. Starkman, for the appellant

Marc DiGirolamo, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: March 11, 2009

On appeal from the order of Justice Joseph W. Quinn of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 23, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] Although the reasons of the motion judge are sparse, a review of the record shows that there was ample evidence to support his finding that the appellant is a vexatious litigant. His conduct in this case is indicative of his persistent and unwarranted pursuit of legal proceedings that are both meritless and frivolous. His conduct has resulted in enormous inconvenience and expense, over many, many years, to opposing litigants and in this era of strained court resources, he can no longer be permitted unrestrained access to the courts of Ontario.

[2] The proposed fresh evidence lacks cogency and in our view, would not have affected the result. Accordingly, the fresh evidence application is dismissed.

[3] Finally, Quinn J. did not err in refusing to allow the appellant to cross-examine on Fermino Susin’s affidavit. The right of cross-examination is not absolute and Quinn J. did not err in refusing it here, where the focus was not the merits of any outstanding proceedings but whether the conditions precedent to a s. 140 order had been met.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.