COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: The University of Western Ontario v. Simpson, 2020 ONCA 416

DATE: 20200626

DOCKET: C67756

BEFORE: Hourigan, Brown and Paciocco JJ.A.

BETWEEN

The University of Western Ontario

Applicant (Respondent)

and

Drew Barry John Simpson

Respondent (Appellant)

AND BETWEEN

The University Students’ Council of the University of Western Ontario

Applicant (Respondent)

and

Drew Barry John Simpson

Respondent (Appellant)

COUNSEL:

Drew Barry John Simpson, acting in person

Alexander D. Pettingill and Josh R. Knox, for the respondent the University of Western Ontario

Alexandre T. Mouret, for the respondent the University Students’ Council of the University of Western Ontario

HEARD: in writing

On appeal from the judgments of Justice T. L. J. Patterson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 1, 2019.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Mr. Simpson appeals judgments of the application judge declaring him a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43.

[2] Mr. Simpson was a student at King's University College (“King's”) at the University of Western Ontario (“UWO”). In 2016, he was banned from entering the property at UWO for an indefinite period due to alleged harassing behaviour directed against another student. He was subsequently suspended from King’s but reinstated as a student in 2018.

[3] Between February 5, 2018, and April 2, 2019, Mr. Simpson initiated at least 22 separate proceedings, including 12 actions, 2 applications, 7 Small Claims Court actions, a notice of class proceeding application, and a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario application. These proceedings have been commenced against UWO, King's, the University Students’ Council of the University of Western Ontario (the “Council”), various government entities, and individuals.

[4] UWO and the Council brought separate applications to have Mr. Simpson declared a vexatious litigant, which were heard together by the application judge. The appellant appeared and made oral submissions at the hearing.

[5] In his oral reasons for judgment, the application judge carefully reviewed Mr. Simpson’s litigation history and found that his conduct exhibited many of the hallmarks of a vexatious litigant, including commencing multiple meritless claims with no prospect of success, bringing proceedings for the purpose of harassment, relitigating issues that had been previously determined, and refusing to pay costs awards. The application judge found that Mr. Simpson is a vexatious litigant and that he would continue to bring vexatious court proceedings on an indefinite basis unless he is stopped.

[6] Mr. Simpson appeals the judgments but does not assert any grounds of appeal or identify any errors in the application judge’s analysis. Instead, he simply asks that the judgments be set aside and seeks various other relief, including a refund of his fees.

[7] The appellant raised a potential conflict of interest with regard to one member of the panel. Particulars of the alleged conflict of interest were sought and provided. It was determined that there is no conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest.

[8] This appeal itself is meritless. We see no error in the application judge’s reasons and agree with his conclusion that Mr. Simpson is a vexatious litigant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Mr. Simpson shall pay the costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $500 to each of UWO and the Council.

“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”