Ottawa Police Services Board v. Deirdre Moore, 2025 ONSC 537

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-91267
DATE: 2025-01-27
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:
Ottawa Police Services Board, Applicant
– and –
Deirdre Moore, Respondent

Appearances:
Michelle Doody, for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent

Heard: January 17, 2025

Decision on Application
K. McVey

Introduction

[1] The Applicant, the Ottawa Police Services Board, brings a vexatious litigant application pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The OPSB asks me to declare Ms. Moore a vexatious litigant and prohibit her from instituting any new proceedings or continuing any proceedings already instituted by her, except with leave of the Superior Court.

[2] Ms. Moore has commenced at least thirteen legal proceedings since 2016. The OPSB has been a named defendant in two of those actions. Many of Ms. Moore’s claims have either been abandoned or struck because they disclose no reasonable cause of action. The OPSB also argues that Ms. Moore’s conduct outside the courtroom has been abusive, inappropriate, and denigrating to the judiciary and the judicial system. The OPSB maintains that Ms. Moore’s vexatious conduct has no end in sight and that the relief sought is necessary to protect innocent targets of her frivolous and harmful litigation, preserve finite court resources, and promote timely access to justice for meritorious claims.

[3] Ms. Moore did not appear at the hearing.

[4] For reasons given below, I am satisfied that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant, and that the interests of justice demand that Ms. Moore be prohibited from launching any new proceedings or continuing with any existing proceedings, without leave of the Court.

Procedural History

[5] This application was first scheduled to proceed on October 5, 2023. The OPSB consented to an adjournment because Ms. Moore had concerns regarding her internet access and ability to fully participate. The parties agreed to a new hearing date in March 2024.

[6] In March 2024, the matter was adjourned a second time because OPSB believed Ms. Moore to be incarcerated. The parties secured a third hearing date of January 9, 2025. In the interim, in July 2024, Ms. Moore launched her own application claiming that this application was vexatious. In August 2024, Ms. Moore wrote to trial coordination and provided it with two new email addresses that she wished trial coordination to use when communicating with her.

[7] OPSB served Ms. Moore with its confirmation of application on December 31, 2024, via email at both the email addresses Ms. Moore provided in August 2024.

[8] The matter could not proceed on January 9, 2025, as planned due to a scheduling issue. Trial coordination wrote to the parties in advance of January 9 to reschedule the hearing. Trial coordination offered January 17, 2025, as a new hearing date. Trial coordination wrote to Ms. Moore via email inquiring about her availability. Counsel for OPSB accepted the January 17 date but Ms. Moore did not respond. Counsel for OPSB also sent emails to Ms. Moore about re-scheduling the hearing. Counsel for OPSB and the trial coordinator wrote a total of five emails to Ms. Moore regarding scheduling, culminating in a final email sent from trial coordination confirming that the hearing would proceed on January 17, 2025, in person.

[9] In oral submissions, counsel for OPSB advised me that in the days leading up to the hearing on January 17, 2025, Ms. Moore’s X page had been updated, suggesting that she had internet access.

[10] On January 17, 2025, Ms. Moore did not attend the hearing. She did not answer when the Court paged her into the courtroom. I proceeded to hear submissions in Ms. Moore’s absence. The matter has been ongoing for years. At various times, she has engaged with counsel for OPSB and trial coordination. As recently as August 2024, Ms. Moore updated her contact information with the Court. Those email addresses were used by OPSB for the purpose of confirming the application on January 9, 2025, and by trial coordination and OPSB when seeking to reschedule the hearing. I was satisfied that Ms. Moore was aware of the ongoing application and the new hearing date.

Brief Factual Overview

[11] Ms. Moore married Jonathan Kiska in July 2000. They have two children together. Ms. Moore’s mental health began to decline in 2013. She began experiencing psychotic episodes and was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder. Ms. Moore and Mr. Kiska separated in the fall of 2015. Acrimonious family law proceedings followed. In 2020, those proceedings concluded when the Court awarded Mr. Kiska sole custody of the children on a final basis. Pursuant to that final order, Ms. Moore’s access to the children was to be at Mr. Kiska’s discretion and in accordance with the children’s wishes. The Court also granted Mr. Kiska and the children a restraining order against Ms. Moore pursuant to s. 137 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

[12] Since that time, Ms. Moore has commenced over ten different civil claims, that at their core all relate to the above-noted family law proceedings. These actions include civil claims against her former family law counsel, Mr. Kiska, Mr. Kiska’s family law counsel, medical professionals, the OPSB, the Attorney General of Ontario, a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ms. Moore’s former landlord, a real estate agent, and a paralegal. Ms. Moore believes that these individuals or entities are acting and conspiring as a “crime syndicate” to cover up Mr. Kiska’s abusive behavior and terminate Ms. Moore’s relationship with her children. Ms. Moore also claims that many of these individuals are part of an organized crime ring that facilitates human trafficking and prostitution.

Issues

[13] This application raises the following issues:

1. Is Ms. Moore a vexatious litigant?
2. If so, what reasonable measures are required to protect the administration of justice from Ms. Moore’s vexatious conduct?

Is Ms. Moore a Vexatious Litigant?

[14] Section 140(1) of the CJA provides:

If a judge of the Superior Court of Justice or the Court of Appeal is satisfied that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in any court or conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner, the judge may make an order that includes any of the following terms:

1. No further proceedings may be instituted by the person in any court, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
2. No proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court shall be continued, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
3. Any other term that is just.

[15] The salient characteristics of vexatious proceedings are described as follows in the leading case of Re Lang Michener et al v. Fabian et al, 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.):

• (a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding;
• (b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious;
• (c) vexatious actions include those brought for improper purposes, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;
• (d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;
• (e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the Court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action;
• (f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious;
• (g) the respondent’s conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.

[16] The Court of Appeal for Ontario describe the above indicia as “hallmarks of vexatious proceedings, and a vexatious litigant”: Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, 2018 ONCA 32, para 24. To succeed on its application, OPSB need not demonstrate that Ms. Moore exhibits behavior falling within all the above categories: Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 166 v. Sennek, 2017 ONSC 5016, para 30. Finally, I may also consider Ms. Moore’s conduct “outside the courtroom” when determining whether she is a vexatious litigant: Dobson v. Green, 2012 ONSC 443, para 12.

[17] A review of Ms. Moore’s litigation history with reference to the above principles easily satisfies me that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant. First, Ms. Moore has repeatedly commenced actions that obviously cannot succeed. In 2021, Ms. Moore commenced her first action against the OPSB, along with her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, and Mr. Kiska. Ms. Moore sought $700,000 in damages on the basis that the defendants conspired to perpetrate an eviction fraud against her and that OPS officers failed to adequately investigate. Ms. Moore alleged that her eviction formed part of “new age domestic violence and/or domestic terrorism.” On June 7, 2022, Justice Ryan Bell struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

[18] In addition, Ms. Moore has sued her former family law counsel, Victor Vallance Blais LLP, five separate times. The first two actions commenced by Ms. Moore in 2018 were discontinued. In 2019, the third and fourth actions were dismissed by Justice Beaudoin pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that they were devoid of merit on their face. In his endorsement, Justice Beaudoin wrote, “[this] pleading is a clear example of the type of claim targeted by Rule 2.1.01…The facts as pleaded cannot possibly give rise to any such claims which have no chance of success.” In the fifth action, Ms. Moore sought $3,000,000 in general, compensatory, pecuniary, special, and aggravated damages on the basis that her former counsel provided her poor advice resulting in psychological damage to her and her children. On February 25, 2021, Justice Gomery struck the statement of claim, finding that it too disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

[19] Second, in my view, Ms. Moore launches court proceedings for improper purposes. In July 2021, Ms. Moore launched her second claim against OPSB. She seeks over $8 million in damages for negligence, negligent investigation, defamation, complicity to arbitrary detention, torture, false imprisonment, assault, battery, accessory to mischief, conspiracy to prosecute, accessory to fraud, knowing assistance of breach in fiduciary duty, deliberate ignorance, malice, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, negligent infliction of emotional suffering and abuse of public service. Ms. Moore claims that OPS officers assisted Mr. Kiska in “illegal child apprehension.”

[20] After commencing this action in July 2021, Ms. Moore wrote an email to counsel for OPSB in which she stated that the action was “good practice” for future claims she wished to bring against other entities. In addition, Ms. Moore subsequently threatened OPSB with further litigation. On October 8, 2021, Ms. Moore told counsel for OPSB that she would initiate a third civil action against OPSB should OPS officers fail to investigate a third criminal report she planned to file regarding “the multiple crimes committed by the white-collar, blue-collar, thug-collar crime ring that eliminated me, a devoted mum, from the lives of my children in the wickedest of ways.”

[21] Third, Ms. Moore repeatedly seeks to relitigate the same factual issues and disputes and does so while simultaneously launching claims against her former lawyers. In numerous proceedings, Ms. Moore has repeated the same allegations of conspiracy against Mr. Kiska, Dr. Paule Kemgni, Mr. Kiska’s former counsel, and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa.

[22] Specifically, in April 2021, Ms. Moore commenced a civil action seeking $1,000,000 in damages from Dr. Kemgni and Mr. Kiska for negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligent infliction of emotional suffering, breach of fiduciary duty, and malice. She alleged that Dr. Kemgni, who conducted a court-ordered psychiatric assessment of Ms. Moore, showed a reckless disregard for the truth and “maliciously obfuscated material facts.” She argued that Dr. Kemgni contributed to the parental alienation she experienced at the hands of Mr. Kiska. On April 7, 2022, Justice Williams stayed the action.

[23] In April 2021, Ms. Moore commenced a civil action against the Attorney General of Ontario. This matter is ongoing. She seeks $1,000,000 in damages due to “Justice Calum MacLeod’s negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional suffering and/or malice.” The statement of claim contains similar allegations of conspiracy against Mr. Kiska, Dr. Kemgni, Mr. Kiska’s former counsel and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa that were made in the claim stayed by Justice Williams.

[24] In July 2021, Ms. Moore launched a second claim against OPSB, her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, and Mr. Kiska. Again, she repeated many of the same conspiratorial allegations contained in the two civil actions described above.

[25] Moreover, Ms. Moore’s various claims involve allegations against lawyers who have acted for and against her in earlier proceedings. As described above, she has sued her former family law counsel five times. In addition, Ms. Moore has launched actions against Addelman Baum Gilbert LLP and Snir Law. Ms. Moore retained Addelman Baum Gilbert in 2019 to defend her against criminal charges and she retained Gonen Snir in 2019 to represent her in family law proceedings. Ms. Moore alleges that her lawyers colluded with other professionals, members of the judiciary, and other justice system participants to undermine her interests. Ms. Moore also commenced an action in 2018 against Mr. Kiska’s counsel in the family law proceedings.

[26] Ms. Moore has also attacked the integrity and outcome of family law proceedings, including the child protections proceedings, through concurrent civil actions, which is a collateral attack on both proceedings and constitutes an abuse of process.

[27] Fourth, Ms. Moore’s litigious history, when viewed holistically, also supports the conclusion that she is a vexatious litigant. She launches claims against defendants when other claims against them remain outstanding. She also discontinues proceedings unceremoniously, which is indicative of a proceeding being brought without reasonable grounds. For example, in July 2024, she launched an application arguing that OPSB’s application was vexatious. She sought to discontinue that application via an email sent to trial coordination and later failed to attend a pre-scheduled case conference. She also discontinued the first two claims she made against her prior family law counsel.

[28] Ms. Moore also repeatedly accuses members of the judiciary of bias and professional misconduct. In 2021, Ms. Moore demanded that Justice MacEachern recuse herself at a case conference because Justice MacEachern had made an earlier interlocutory ruling against Ms. Moore in the context of child protection proceedings. Ms. Moore also sought leave from the Divisional Court to appeal the interlocutory ruling at issue. The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal.

[29] Ms. Moore demanded that Justice Gomery recuse herself during OPSB’s motion to strike the first claim Ms. Moore launched against OPSB. More recently, Ms. Moore accused both Justice Corthorn and Associate Justice Fortier of bias.

[30] Fifth, Ms. Moore has failed to satisfy prior costs awards made against her. In 2022, when dismissing Ms. Moore’s claim against OPSB and the other co-defendants because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, Justice Ryan Bell awarded costs in favor of the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis as Ms. Moore had launched baseless claims against the defendants’ professional integrity. Justice Ryan Bell stated that Ms. Moore’s allegations “impugned the administration of justice and the impartiality of the judiciary.” The costs award made in favor of OPSB remains outstanding.

[31] Sixth, and finally, Ms. Moore’s conduct outside the courtroom is also vexatious, scandalous, and inflammatory. On her website, Ms. Moore has posted baseless and derogatory allegations against counsel for OPSB, whom she accused of participating in “organized crime” and “extortion.” She wrote that a named Superior Court Judge was engaged in a “court-enabled cover-up.” She posted that both the Judge and counsel for OPSB have “descended into sociopathy and remain undetected simply because they travel in packs in order to hunt and destroy their prey.” Ms. Moore also accused the Ottawa Crown Attorney’s Office, the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of participating in an “Ottawa-based crime syndicate.” Further, on her website, Ms. Moore accused Justice Gomery (as she then was) of encouraging another Superior Court Judge to be “ruthless” in her treatment of Ms. Moore, and she claimed that Justice MacLeod was “crooked.” Finally, in a small claims matter launched in 2018, Ms. Moore wrote that a support order made by Justice Audet was “fraudulent” and that Justice Audet was “incompetent.”

[32] The purpose of section 140 of the CJA is to “protect honest citizens and litigants and the overall integrity of the justice system against those who continually abuse the court process by engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation”: Dobson, at para. 8; Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. v. Hicks, 2019 ONSC 4942, para 71. I appreciate that the power to declare someone a vexatious litigant must “be exercised sparingly and with the greatest of care”: Dobson, at para. 6. But even on a restrained and cautious view of the evidentiary record before me, I am more than satisfied that Ms. Moore has continuously abused the court process through meritless litigation and will persist in doing so absent court intervention.

[33] For the above reasons, I find that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant.

What Reasonable Measures Are Required to Protect the Administration of Justice from Ms. Moore’s Vexatious Conduct?

[34] A declaration that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant does not deprive her of an ability to launch bona fide claims. It simply provides a mechanism through which Ms. Moore’s claims, both future and existing, can be vetted before potential defendants are exposed to unrelenting, expensive, and spurious litigation. Ms. Moore must provide a copy of this vexatious litigant order and these reasons to any person or body in respect of whom she initiates or continues a complaint of any kind. Further, in the circumstances, I dispense with the requirement that Ms. Moore approve, as to form and content, the order to be taken out pursuant to these reasons.

[35] I understand that Ms. Moore may be involved in ongoing divorce proceedings. Whether or not Ms. Moore is the applicant in those proceedings is unclear to me. The concerns that justify declaring Ms. Moore a vexatious litigant do not apply with the same vigor to those proceedings. Ms. Moore’s problematic civil claims should not impact a potentially legitimate claim for a divorce. This Order shall not affect any ongoing divorce proceedings that Ms. Moore may have initiated. I thank counsel for OPSB for flagging this nuance in oral submissions.

Conclusion

[36] The relief requested by OPSB is granted:

1. This Court declares that:

   • a. Deirdre Moore has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious court proceedings and has conducted court proceedings in a vexatious manner within the meaning of ss. 140(1) (a) and (b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
   • b. is a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 140 of the CJA.

2. This Court prohibits Deirdre Moore from, either directly or indirectly, instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted by her in any court, except and until such time as she has obtained leave by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to s. 140(3) of the CJA and as provided for in this order.

3. This Court orders that all existing actions, appeals, and applications brought by Deirdre Moore, except ongoing divorce proceedings, are immediately stayed except and until such time as she has obtained leave pursuant to s. 140(3) of the CJA and as provided for in this order.

4. This Court orders that should Deirdre Moore file material seeking to commence or continue a proceeding or any appeal in any court in Ontario without first filing an entered Order permitting her to do so, the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this Order in such a Court.

5. This Court orders that Deirdre Moore shall deliver a copy of this Order, and of the Reasons for Decision herein dated January 27, 2025, to any person or body with whom she initiates or continues any complaint, including, without limitation, any court, administrative body and/or tribunal, regulatory body, the police, and the Crown.

6. This Court orders that the requirement for Deidre Moore to approve, as to form and content, this or any other draft order herein is dispensed with.

Costs

[37] The OPSB has been entirely successful in its application. It claims actual costs of $59,822.20.

[38] Costs are quintessentially discretionary: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131(1); Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779, para 344. Costs are intended to foster a number of fundamental purposes: 1) indemnify the successful party of the legal costs they incurred; 2) encourage settlement; 3) deter frivolous actions and defences; and 4) discourage unnecessary steps that unduly prolong the litigation: 1465778 Ontario Inc. v. 1122077 Ontario Ltd..

[39] Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure delineates factors the court may consider when determining an appropriate amount of costs. Ultimately, the costs fixed by the Court “should reflect more what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant”: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 281 (C.A.), para 24. The overall objective of fixing costs is to fix an amount that is objectively reasonable, fair, and proportionate for the unsuccessful party to pay in the circumstances of the case: Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587, para 61.

[40] With respect to quantum of costs, I have some concerns with the time spent on the application. Lawyers and law clerks spent a total of 326.8 hours on the litigation. Specifically, counsel for OPSB spent 65.8 hours preparing for the hearing and law clerks spent 38.9 hours. This was in addition to the 74 hours counsel spent drafting materials and the 112 hours counsel spent on “strategy and consultation.” Though the applicable legal principles in this area are well-settled, I appreciate that the application required a comprehensive factual record that necessarily took considerable time and effort to produce. However, once counsel collated those materials and drafted written materials, I cannot accept that a further one hundred hours was reasonably required to prepare for the hearing. I have no trouble accepting, however, that the hourly rate charged by counsel was imminently reasonable. Further, the application raises issues of significant importance to OPSB given that Ms. Moore has already launched two claims against OPSB and its individual members, and Ms. Moore has threatened to continue her litigious behavior.

[41] I find that fixing costs at $18,000, all inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Costs are payable by Ms. Moore to OPSB within 30 days.

K. McVey
Released: January 27, 2025