Court File and Parties

CITATION: Liu v. Kostiuk, 2025 ONSC 133

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 566/24

DATE: 20250108

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Wanli Liu et al., Applicants

-and-

Boris J. Kostiuk, et al., Respondents

BEFORE: FL Myers J

COUNSEL: Wanli Liu, self-represented Applicant

Frank Perruccio, for the Respondents

READ: January 08, 2025

CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT

[1] The operative terms of my endorsement dated December 11, 2024, reported at 2024 ONSC 6933:

a. required Ms. Liu to pay outstanding costs and appoint counsel on the record by December 31, 2024;

b. authorized the respondents to move to dismiss the motion for leave to appeal informally in the event that Ms. Liu failed to perform as ordered by December 31, 2024;

c. informed Ms. Liu that I was considering revoking her Fee Waiver and restricting her from obtaining further Fee Waivers in related proceedings due to her bringing frivolous proceedings and conducted them in abuse of the court’s process to date; and

d. invited Ms. Liu to make written submission in response to the concern raised about her Fee Waivers.

[2] No submissions have been from Ms. Liu.

[3] I have received an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents indicating that as of December 31, 2024, Ms. Liu had not paid any of the outstanding costs awards nor appointed counsel of record as ordered.

[4] Therefore, Ms. Liu’s motion for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. It may not be perfected nor put before a panel.

[5] The respondents may seek costs, if so inclined, by delivering no more than two pages of submissions and a Bill of Costs by January 17, 2025. Ms. Liu may respond with no more than two pages of submissions to be delivered by no later than January 31, 2025. Submissions should be sent to the Divisional Court Registrar and copied to my Judicial Assistant at therese.navrotski@ontario.ca.

[6] Under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c A.6, a judge may revoke a litigant’s Fee Waiver if, “the person’s actions in the proceeding or enforcement are frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.”

[7] This motion for leave to appeal meets that description. Ms. Liu was seeking leave to appeal from an adjournment granted by a judge in order to give Ms. Liu time to provide needed evidence and submissions. At best the motion for leave to appeal was designed to prevent the judge below from hearing the matter on the merits on its return. It was frivolous in the sense that it could not possibly succeed. Moreover, it continued a pattern of abuse whereby Ms. Liu ignores court orders because she declares that she has a good defence to the merits of the claims against her. Having declared herself to be the sole judge and jury in the case, she then actively tries to prevent the matter from being heard on its merits by the court.

[8] I therefore revoke Ms. Liu’s Fee Waiver in the Divisional Court.

[9] As Ms. Liu’s misconduct is ongoing and is interfering with the efficient resolution of this action on its merits, this is a case for a further order under s. 4.10 (5) of the statute. I order that Ms. Liu shall not make any further requests for a Fee Waiver with respect to this motion for leave to appeal and otherwise in the proceeding below before the Superior Court under Court File No. CV-23-00000924-00ES (the “Proceedings”) without permission obtained in advance from a judge.

[10] I direct the Registrar of the Divisional Court and the Registrar of the Superior Court of Justice to refuse any further requests for a Fee Waiver that Ms. Liu may make in either of the Proceedings in breach of this order i.e. without first obtaining permission to request a further Fee Waiver from a judge.

[11] The respondents may take out an order in the operative terms of this Endorsement without seeking Ms. Liu’s approval of the form or content of the draft order. The order is to be filed in both the Divisional Court and the Superior Court files.

FL Myers J

Date: January 8, 2025