Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20241209 DOCKET: COA-24-CV-0966

Nordheimer, Copeland and Madsen JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Stewart Wilson*, Elizabeth Wilson* and Abrahams LLP** Respondents (Appellants*/Respondent**)

and

Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari Applicant (Respondent)

Counsel: Stewart Wilson and Elizabeth Wilson, acting in person Jerald J.D. MacKenzie, for the respondent, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari Bradley Phillips, for the respondent, Abrahams LLP

Heard: in writing

Determination pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, with respect to the appeal from the order of Justice William M. LeMay of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 31, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 4275.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Stewart Wilson and Elizabeth Wilson have filed an appeal from the order of the motion judge that dismissed two actions involving the appellants. Counsel for both respondents sought a dismissal of the appeal pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Counsel for Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari filed materials in support of that request. Upon a review of the matter, the Registrar was directed by the court to send notice to the appellants that it was considering the r. 2.1 request. The appellants filed material in response to the r. 2.1 request. Both respondents then filed reply materials to the appellants’ response.

[2] The appeal is yet another step in what has been a very long history of litigation between these parties (and others). Indeed, this court has dealt with aspects of that litigation in the past including dismissing two Notices of Appeal by Stewart Wilson back in 2018 [1] and another one in 2023 [2]. In the 2018 decision, this court noted that Mr. Wilson “has made a procedural morass of this case”. That situation has not changed in the past six years, although Mr. Wilson is not alone in contributing to that procedural morass.

[3] This collection of litigation has been case managed by three different judges over the past nine years. The motion judge is the current case management judge. The appeal arises out of orders that the motion judge made that, among other things, dealt with two outstanding actions. He dismissed both of those actions, one involving Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari and the other involving Abrahams LLP.

[4] The motion judge gave very lengthy reasons for his decisions. Among his reasons for dismissing the two actions was that they were both an abuse of process.

[5] In their Notice of Appeal, the appellants make various assertions including that the motion judge failed to acknowledge fraud committed on the court by Ms. Fatahi-Ghandehari and that he ignored evidence. Two things are apparent from the Notice of Appeal. One is that the grounds of appeal reflect the type of allegations made by frivolous or vexatious litigants. The other is that many of their complaints are largely directed at failings that the appellants allege occurred in an earlier proceeding that is not the subject of this appeal. These are the same issues that led this court to strike out Mr. Wilson’s Notice of Appeal in its 2023 decision.

[6] Both appellants have a history of disobeying court orders, including failing to produce documents and failing to pay costs awards. That history is set out in detail in the motion judge’s reasons. That history, taken with the nature of the allegations made in the grounds of appeal, is sufficient to establish that this appeal is an abuse of process.

[7] Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are entitled to their costs which we fix in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST for each respondent.

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“J. Copeland J.A.”

“L. Madsen J.A.”

Cited Cases

[1] Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2018 ONCA 728.

[2] Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2023 ONCA 74, 82 R.F.L. (8th) 255.