Robert N. Beaudoin

The applicant father sought costs for three separate attendances in a high-conflict custody and access dispute.

The court found that the respondent mother had acted in bad faith by systematically frustrating the father's access, breaching court orders, and recklessly submitting false evidence regarding a proposed assessor.

The court awarded the father costs for all three events, including full indemnity costs for the final motion due to the mother's bad faith, totaling $51,750.

The plaintiff sued the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, and breaches of her Charter rights following her arrest for keeping a bawdy house.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff based on their investigation of her massage parlour.

Although a criminal court had previously excluded evidence due to a s. 8 Charter breach regarding the search warrant, the court held that the exclusion of evidence and subsequent dismissal of criminal charges adequately fulfilled the functional objectives of the Charter, making an award of damages inappropriate.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order enforcing its declaration and rules against the respondents, who were leasing their unit on a short-term basis through platforms like Airbnb.

The respondents argued that the application should be stayed for failure to mediate/arbitrate, that other owners needed notice, and that the rules did not prohibit their activities.

The court found that the respondents had waived the arbitration requirement, that notice to other owners was unnecessary, and that the short-term rentals violated the 'single-family dwelling' restriction in the declaration.

The court ordered the respondents to comply with the declaration and rules.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement agreement, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs due to the bad faith conduct of the self-represented plaintiff, who had repudiated the settlement after receiving some of its benefits.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct caused unnecessary delays and costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs to the defendants and $500 to his former counsel.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave to appeal, the court received costs submissions from the respondent.

The applicant filed no submissions.

Given that a previous order required the applicant to undergo a mental capacity assessment under the Courts of Justice Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, the court deferred the issue of costs until the results of that assessment are available.

The applicant mother brought an emergency motion to immediately implement a clinical assessor's recommendation to change the primary residence of the child.

The motion was dismissed, and the respondent father sought costs.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct to be reprehensible, noting she escalated attacks against the respondent and filed unreliable, inflammatory affidavits.

Applying the costs consequences of Rule 18 due to the respondent's reasonable offers to settle, the court awarded the respondent costs approaching full recovery, fixed at $20,000.

Following a trial where the plaintiff had mixed success on a construction lien claim and failed on a breach of trust claim, both parties sought costs.

The court found equal success on the lien action, as the plaintiff proved the value of his claims but the defendant established the lien was registered out of time, resulting in no costs for either party.

The defendant was awarded $10,000 in costs for successfully defending the meritless breach of trust claim.

The respondent submitted a written request under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the applicants' claims as frivolous and vexatious.

The underlying application concerned the validity of a resolution amending a Shared Property Agreement for a townhouse unit.

The court found that the application raised arguable issues on its face and that the attenuated process of Rule 2.1 was not appropriate.

The court noted that if the respondent wished to argue for dismissal, it should be done by way of a formal Notice of Motion.

The request was dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action seeking $9 million in damages and various public remedies following the suspension of a student and subsequent unsuccessful human rights complaints.

Several defendants submitted written requests under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have the action dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the pleadings exhibited common attributes of vexatious litigation, including attempting to re-litigate issues already decided by the Human Rights Tribunal and seeking relief beyond the court's jurisdiction.

The court ordered that the action be stayed and directed the Registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiffs that the court is considering dismissing the action.

The defendants submitted a written request to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff indicating it was considering the dismissal due to an apparent lack of jurisdiction, as all defendants and events were located in Bermuda.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions addressing the jurisdictional issue, instead filing a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The court found the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed the proceeding.

The offender was found guilty of multiple offences including offering a bribe to an immigration officer, possession of identity information, forgery, and misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, relating to 170 fraudulent refugee sponsorship applications.

The court rejected the application of the Kienapple principle to stay the forgery charges.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the sophisticated, profit-driven nature of the scheme and the harm to the integrity of the immigration system, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a global penitentiary sentence of 45 months.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the dismissal of the action.

The plaintiff requested and received an extension of time to respond but failed to provide written submissions.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Intact Insurance Company brought an application seeking a declaration on the interpretation of s. 44(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), specifically whether an insured is required to sign any consent form dictated by the insurer for a s. 44 examination.

The respondent, Anne Beaudry, argued that such consent forms must be "reasonable and justifiable." The court found that any required consent form must be "reasonable" based on the language of s. 44, the insurer's duty of utmost good faith, and the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Regulation.

The court dismissed Intact's request to unilaterally dictate consent terms, emphasizing the need for reasonableness and negotiation.

The defendant brought a requisition under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to have the plaintiff's professional negligence claim dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

The defendant argued the claims were statute-barred and precluded by res judicata and issue estoppel.

The court declined to apply Rule 2.1, finding that the statement of claim on its face did not suggest frivolousness and that pending summary judgment motions would provide a more appropriate forum for a complete evidentiary record to address the substantive defences.

The requisition was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol level exceeding 80 mg, arguing arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter and seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The trial judge found no detention until the approved screening device demand.

The appeal court upheld this finding, concluding that the initial police interaction was a general inquiry, not a detention, and that the officer's subjective belief was not determinative.

Applying the principles from *R. v. Suberu* and *R. v. Grant*, the court found no Charter breach.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court determined that excluding the reliable breath sample evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the officer's good faith and the seriousness of the offence.

The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court reviewed the statement of claim and the plaintiff's submissions, finding no recognizable cause of action.

The claim, alleging the defendant failed to provide disclosure from the Bermuda Police Service, lacked essential pleadings regarding duty, breach, and resulting loss.

The court also noted the claim appeared to be statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff initiated an action claiming $300,000,000 in damages for events that occurred in Bermuda, naming multiple Bermuda residents and entities as defendants.

The Registrar's Office referred the matter to the court under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following a request from the defendants.

The court found that the action involved events in a foreign country with foreign residents as defendants, indicating no apparent jurisdiction in Ontario.

The court determined the action might be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and consequently ordered a notice to the plaintiff regarding potential dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 and stayed the action pending a written hearing.

The defendants, Buset & Partners LLP, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01(1) to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, Buhendwa Musole, sued the defendants for their representation of a third party in prior family and civil court proceedings, alleging they misled the court and obstructed his pursuit of "Truth and Justice." The plaintiff's underlying claims against the third party involved "violation fraud and pregnancy entrapment," which the court found lacked legal precedent.

The court, reviewing the pleadings and the plaintiff's submissions, concluded that the action was an attempt to re-litigate issues and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed.

The court, on its own initiative, considered dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Despite notice being given to the plaintiff, no written submissions were received within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.