Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-09-25 Docket: C66810

Judges: Doherty, Harvison Young and Thorburn JJ.A.

Between

Kimberley Marie Stephens Respondent

and

William Russell Stephens Appellant

Counsel

Kimberley Marie Stephens, self-represented William Russell Stephens, self-represented

Heard: September 20, 2019

On appeal from: The judgment of Justice Arrell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 9, 2011.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] No one appears for the respondent. The motion judge properly dismissed the myriad of orders requested by the appellant. There is no appeal from that part of the disposition.

[2] The motion judge also commented, in strong terms, on the appellant's long-term misuse of the process. He declared the appellant a vexatious litigant. He did so without any application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, and without giving the appellant any opportunity to address the proposed order.

[3] In light of the significant procedural shortcomings, and absent a proper application, the order cannot stand, despite the potential merit of the order.

[4] The appeal must be allowed, the order prohibiting the appellant from bringing any application involving the respondent, her counsel or children in any family-related matter without leave of the court, must be set aside.

[5] The appellant advises that he no longer has any desire to engage in this family law-related litigation. He says he has not tried to bring any motions in 10 years, and only wants to get on with his life. Hopefully, this is true.

[6] We emphasize that our decision turns on the absence of procedural fairness. We do not suggest that the motion judge's characterization of the appellant's litigation conduct was inappropriate. The appeal is allowed and the "vexatious litigant" order is set aside.