Robin Bates

The court considered a request by the Toronto Police Service Board and Detective Constable Matthew Mungal to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The action, brought by J. Craig Anderson as litigation guardian for his son, alleged failures by the Toronto District School Board and others to accommodate the minor plaintiff’s disabilities and respond to bullying and misconduct.

The court declined to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01, finding the claim was bona fide and did not exhibit the hallmarks of a frivolous or vexatious proceeding.

The court emphasized the importance of access to justice for self-represented litigants and directed the parties to attend a case conference.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action seeking over $150 million in damages against numerous individuals, agencies, and institutions relating to an unsuccessful adoption process.

Several defendants requisitioned the court to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the statement of claim consisted of broad, sweeping allegations lacking substantive content to support any known cause of action.

The court dismissed the action against the requisitioning defendants and, on its own initiative, dismissed the action in its entirety against all remaining defendants.

The applicant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an application against the Ontario Ombudsman without obtaining the required leave of the court.

The court ordered the applicant to appear at a show cause hearing to address why he should not be held in contempt for breaching the prior order.

The application was immediately stayed pursuant to the vexatious litigant order, and will be dismissed if leave is not obtained.

The appellant was convicted of careless driving and appealed his sentence.

The provincial court judge declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal, questioning whether the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) was an independent tribunal under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the court was independent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, establishing the essential conditions of judicial independence: security of tenure, financial security, and institutional independence.

The Court concluded that Ontario provincial court judges met these requirements and constituted an independent tribunal.