Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-12-00447544-0000 Date: 2026-03-13 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Yong Wang, Plaintiff
-- and --
Christopher Banton, Defendant
Self-represented
William Jesseau, for the Defendant
Heard: March 10, 2026
Des Rosiers J.
[1] The defendant brings this motion to have the plaintiff prevented from initiating or pursuing further proceedings within the present action which is scheduled for trial in June 2026.
[2] The defendant is proceeding pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act that gives the power to a judge of the Superior Court to rule that a person may not institute any further proceeding except with leave of a judge or that proceeding already instituted not be continued except with leave of a judge. In order to issue such orders, the judge must be satisfied that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner.
[3] The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, did not appear at the motion. The court stood the matter down for 20 minutes to provide Mr. Wang with some time in case he had had difficulty getting to the courthouse.
[4] Mr. Wang had been duly served and reminded of the court date by the defendant's counsel.
Background
[5] This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 5, 2010, in Mississauga, Ontario.
[6] The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, issued a Statement of Claim on February 29, 2012.
[7] The defendant, Mr. Barton, delivered his Statement of Defence and Jury Notice on or about April 2, 2012.
[8] On April 4, 2016, Wendy Sokoloff and Sokoloff Lawyers were removed as Solicitors of Record for Mr. Wang.
[9] On April 12, 2016, Mr. Wang served a notice of intention to act in person.
[10] Between August 2016 and January 2021, the defendant had to bring several motions to compel Mr. Wang's attendance at a defence medical examination. Mr. Wang's position was that his psychiatrist had indicated that such an attendance would cause him distress and harm.
[11] The defendant brought the following proceedings:
On August 17, 2016, ruling on a motion by the defendant, Master Pope ordered Mr. Wang to attend defence medical exam and to pay costs of $1000
On December 12, 2016, ruling on a motion by the defendant, Master McAfee ordered Wr. Wang to attend a defence medical exam and pay costs of $250 within 90 days.
On September 25, 2017, ruling on a motion by the defendant, Master Suganasiri ordered Mr. Wang to attend defence medical exam and to pay costs of $250 within 60 days.
Mr. Wang appealed the Order of Master Suganasiri to Divisional Court. On December 5, 2019 Justice Favreau quashed the appeal on the ground that the proper forum was before a judge of the Superior Court of Ontario.
On February 12, 2020, Justice O'Brien of the Superior Court of Ontario dismissed Mr. Wang's appeal and ordered him to attend the defence medical examination. Mr. Wang was ordered to pay costs of $3000 for the appeal and $1500 of the previous orders within 60 days.
Mr. Wang appealed Justice O'Brien's order. On January 27, 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the proper forum was the Divisional Court. The Court ordered Mr. Wang to pay costs in the amount of $2000.
On July 15, 2021, the Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Wang's leave to appeal motion from Justice O'Brien's decision.
On October 25, 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Wang's appeal of the Divisional Court's decision. It ordered Mr. Wang to pay costs in the amount of $750.
[12] On February 7, 2022, Mr. Wang attended a physiatry assessment with Dr. Joshua Muhlstock, which was booked by the defendant. A Mandarin interpreter from All Languages Interpreters was booked to attend the assessment with Mr. Wang.
[13] By letter dated May 5, 2022, Mr. Wang wrote to counsel for the defendant, requesting the Mandarin interpreter's name, emergency contact phone number, photo I.D., and certificates for medical assessment.
[14] Counsel for the defendant provided the name of the interpreter and referred Mr. Wang to All Languages. Counsel also confirmed that the interpreter did not have a certificate for medical assessment. Counsel did not provide a photo I.D. nor an emergency contact number for the interpreter.
[15] In January 2023, the Civil Trial Office advised the defendant's counsel that the matter had been administratively struck from the trial list. The defendant moved to have the matter reinstated on the trial list because the defendant wanted the matter to be conclusively determined, either by a dismissal of the action for delay or a trial on the merits.
[16] On February 9, 2023, Mr. Wang advised the defendant that Mr. Wang was seeking an urgent motion before a Judge for an order for the release of the interpreter's certificates for medical assessment, photo I.D., emergency contact phone number, and mailing address.
[17] Mr. Wang's position was that the translation provided by the interpreter was erroneous, done in bad faith and fraudulent. Mr. Wang objects to the translation of the physiatry assessment.
[18] Mr. Wang appeared at Civil Practice Court on March 7, 2023, seeking to schedule a motion to obtain the information relating to the interpreter. Justice Koehnen declined to schedule another motion and ruled that the motion already scheduled for the following year, March 7, 2024, could deal with Mr. Wang's motion to obtain the information relating to the interpreter in the following terms:
"A motion is already scheduled in this matter for March 7, 2024. It is unclear what specific relief the plaintiff is seeking on its own motion. I order the two motions to be heard together on March 7, 2024. If the plaintiff is seeking production of documents from the defendant, it should make that clear to the defendant immediately. The defendant should produce those documents within 30 days, absent some compelling reason not to. The failure of the defendant to produce those documents may be an argument that the plaintiff can raise to defeat the defendant's motion on March 7, 2024."
[19] On March 7, 2024, the defendant moved to have the action dismissed for delay or, alternatively, restored to the trial list. Mr. Wang brought his cross-motion to obtain the release of the interpreter's certificates for medical assessment, photo I.D., emergency contact phone number, and mailing address. He further asked for damages and the striking of the Statement of Defence.
[20] On March 7, 2024, Associate Justice McAfee heard both motions. Associate Justice McAfee allowed the defendant to restore the matter on the trial list and dismissed Mr. Wang's cross-motion. She also ordered costs of $2000 payable in any event of the cause by Mr. Wang to the Defendant. She also cautioned Mr. Wang to stop copying non-parties on its correspondence to the defendant's counsel in the following terms (par. 14 and 15):
"14. The plaintiff has been blind copying numerous lawyers on emails with respect to this matter. The lawyers being copied are from different law firms and are not involved in this action. The plaintiff's reason for doing so is unclear.
- I am not satisfied of my jurisdiction to grant an order directing the plaintiff to stop corresponding with unrelated counsel on this matter. I was not referred to any authority or Rule in this regard. While I am not satisfied of my jurisdiction to make an order in this regard, I strongly urge the plaintiff to refrain from copying or blind copying lawyers who are unrelated to this matter. I am not satisfied of any acceptable reason for the plaintiff to be doing so. ..."
(Emphasis added)
[21] On April 19, 2024, Mr. Wang served a notice of appeal of the Order of Associate Justice McAfee. His notice of appeal challenges the order on multiple grounds. In particular, Mr. Wang argues that it is unfair for him to have the matter back on the trial list without his access to the documents related to the interpreter that he requested.
[22] Mr. Wang states in his notice of appeal:
"Mr. Lee as a professional Mandarin Interpreter who hired by the Defendant did not explain Consent to Third Party Medical Evaluation drafted by Dr. Muhlstock dated February 7, 2022. But Mr. Lee still signed the Consent Form to cheat on the Honorable court for contract cheating. As a medical expert and witness, Dr. Muhlstock disregarded his duty of expert and deceived the Honorable Court and the disabled Plaintiff for Guilty of Perjury. The Defendant as a professional conspired with Mr. Lee without legal qualifications and identities to deceive the Honorable court for a cover-up and bad faith."
[23] On May 2024, the action was again administratively dismissed for delay in contravention of Associate Justice McAfee's decision.
[24] At a case conference on June 24, 2024, at which the defendant did not participate, Justice Myers directed the parties to deal with reinstating the matter on the trial list.
[25] The action was reinstated on the trial list by Associate Justice Abrahms on February 28, 2025.
[26] Justice Shore dismissed Mr. Wang's appeal of Associate Justice McAfee's March 2024 Order. Mr. Wang now seeks leave to appeal Justice Shore's dismissal to the Divisional Court.
[27] On December 1, 2025, Justice Chalmers ordered a timetable for the exchange of expert reports and set the matter for a jury trial to be held in June 2026 in the following terms:
"This action was commenced in 2012. The Defendant seeks to schedule trial and pre-trial dates. The Plaintiff states that there is currently an appeal that should be finally decided before the trial is scheduled. The appeal relates to the decision of Associate Justice McAfee from March 2025 (sic). The appeal was dismissed by Justice Shore. The Plaintiff has filed a motion in writing for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.
I am of the view that the trial and pre-trial dates should be scheduled at this time. This action is 13 years old.
Regardless of the decision of the Divisional Court with respect to the motion for leave, there should be sufficient time to complete all interlocutory matters before the trial.
I schedule the trial for the June 2026 sittings. The pre-trial is scheduled for April 24, 2026, at 9:30. If the Divisional Court grants leave and the appeal cannot be heard before the pre-trial, the parties may seek a case conference with me. (...)
The trial co-ordinator advised that Mr. Wang has contacted the trial office multiple times with respect to this matter. In fact, there were more than 15 e-mails sent by Mr. Wang over the weekend before trial scheduling court. Mr. Wang is directed to refrain from contacting the trial office with respect to this action unless it is absolutely necessary. If Mr. Wang fails to comply with this direction, the court may, on its own motion, make an order that imposes more strict terms on Mr. Wang."
(Emphasis added)
[28] Mr. Wang has failed to pay the costs ordered against him, from the Order of Master Pope, Order of Master McAfee, Order of Master Sugunasiri, Order of Master O'Brien, Order of Justice Roberts, Justice Zarnett and Justice Sossin, Order of Justice Backhouse, Justice Penny, and Justice Favreau, and Order of Justice Fairburn, Justice Rouleau and Justice Huscroft, in the aggregate amount of $10,896.63;
[29] The defendant also introduced evidence of the manner in which since February 2023, despite being asked to stop numerous times, Mr. Wang blind copies a number of unrelated people in emails on this matter. Lawyers, government agencies, and news organizations across Canada and the United States have reached the defendant advising that they were blind copies on litigation materials related to the present matter. Associate Justice McAfee warned Mr. Wang to stop. I note that there is evidence that even after Associate Justice McAfee's warning, Mr. Wang continued to blind copy external persons to the litigation.
[30] Mr. Wang has also developed the practice of serving his materials four times per business day from four different email addresses he uses. The defendant has recently received 150 emails or phone calls from Mr. Wang with respect to this litigation.
[31] Mr. Wang did not file any materials in response to the present motion.
[32] The defendant is concerned that unless the court exercises its powers pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, the matter may not be able to proceed to trial in June 2026 and therefore continue for several more years. In particular, the defendant is concerned that Mr. Wang may appeal Justice Chalmer's order.
[33] The accident occurred in 2010. As indicated by Justice Chalmers, it is time that this matter be heard and dealt with.
Analysis
[34] Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act was amended in October 2024 to provide for the powers of Superior Court judges to issue orders on motions.
[35] Section 140 provides as follows:
140 (1) If a judge of the Superior Court of Justice or of 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:
No further proceeding may be instituted by the person in any court, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
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.
Any other term that is just. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1).
Procedure
(2) An order under subsection (1) may be made on a judge's own initiative or on motion or application by any person, as provided in the rules of court. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1); 2024, c. 28, Sched. 4, s. 5.
Notice required
(2.1) An order under subsection (1) may only be made on notice to the person who is the subject of the order, as provided in the rules of court. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1).
Branches of the Superior Court of Justice
(2.2) An order of the Superior Court of Justice under subsection (1) may be made by a judge presiding in any branch of that court. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1).
Appeals and reviews
(2.3) The following rules apply with respect to an order made under subsection (1):
If the order was made by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, an appeal of the order lies to a panel of the Court of Appeal.
If the order was made by a judge of the Court of Appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeal may, on motion, set aside or vary the decision.
For greater certainty, leave is not required to bring an appeal under paragraph 1 or a motion under paragraph 2, unless the court orders otherwise. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1).
Application for leave to proceed
(3) Where a person against whom an order under subsection (1) has been made seeks leave to institute or continue a proceeding, the person shall do so by way of an application in the Superior Court of Justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140 (3); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).
Leave to proceed
(4) Where an application for leave is made under subsection (3),
(a) leave shall be granted only if the court is satisfied that the proceeding sought to be instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding;
(b) the person making the application for leave may seek the rescission of the order made under subsection (1) but may not seek any other relief on the application;
(c) the court may rescind the order made under subsection (1);
(d) the Attorney General is entitled to be heard on the application; and
(e) no appeal lies from a refusal to grant relief to the applicant. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140 (4).
Issues
[36] The issue before me is whether I am satisfied that Mr. Wang has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner and whether it is in the interests of justice to prevent him from initiating any other proceeding or continuing any previously instituted proceeding except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
[37] The defendant is seeking an order that Mr. Wang not be permitted to initiate new interlocutory matters within the current action without leave of the court and that he be further enjoined from pursuing the proceedings previously instituted, such as his appeal to the Divisional Court, without leave of the court.
[38] For reasons below, I am of the view that Mr. Wang should be prevented from initiating new interlocutory motions or instituting new appeals with respect to the current action except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. Mr. Wang is not prevented from submitting his pre-trial materials for the pre-trial conference fixed for April 24, 2026. Mr. Wang is prevented from appearing at Civil Practice Court to secure new motion dates or appealing Justice Chalmers's order without first obtaining leave of the court.
[39] I conclude however that Justice Chalmers' clear endorsement eliminates the need for me to opine on whether Mr. Wang should be prevented from pursuing his appeal to the Divisional Court. It is clear that Mr. Wang can continue his appeal and Justice Chalmers remains seized of any issue arising out of the appeal which may have an impact on the trial date.
Is Mr. Wang's conduct vexatious?
[40] The defendant relies on the principles enunciated in Re Lang Michener et al. v. Fabian et al., 1987 CanLII 172 (ONSC) ("Lang Michener") to argue that Mr. Wang has engaged in vexatious conduct.
[41] In Lang Michener, the Court suggested that the following principles should be considered when determining if a litigant is vexatious:
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 an improper purpose, 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 the 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.
[42] The defendant rely on four main arguments. First, the defendant argues that Mr. Wang has been declared a vexatious litigant in other proceedings. Second, the defendant argues that Mr. Wang has failed to pay the costs awarded against him. Third, the defendant argues that Mr. Wang has persistently taken unsuccessful appeal from the judicial decisions. Finally, the defendant argues that Mr. Wang's conduct in blind-copying external people and in flooding email inboxes with repetitious emails and documents constitutes vexatious conduct.
[43] The fact that Mr. Wang has been found to be a vexatious litigant in other proceedings is not determinative of whether his conduct in the present case meets the threshold of vexatious conduct. Furthermore, because Mr. Wang is on social assistance, I do not consider that his failure to pay costs is indicative of vexatious conduct.
[44] I do find that his persistent appeals of Associate Justice McAfee amount to vexatious conduct. His demand for an interpreter's private information is not relevant to the pursuit of his case. If he disagrees with the translation of the physiatry assessment or is concerned that his description of his injuries has been mischaracterized or incorrectly described in the report, he can testify to that effect at trial. The interpreter's photo I.D. and emergency contact phone number are irrelevant to any issue in this case.
[45] All litigants have a duty to pursue a just and expeditious resolution of their disputes. The right to appeal must not be exercised for irrelevant purposes.
[46] Vexatious conduct is conduct undertaken for irrelevant purposes to inconvenience, disrupt, harm or aggrieve the other side.
[47] I find that Mr. Wang engaged in vexatious conduct when he blind-copied numerous persons unrelated to the lawsuit and flooded the inbox of defendant's counsel. Mr. Wang has not offered any justification for such disruptive conduct.
[48] Pursuant to section 140 of the Court of Justice Act, I am satisfied that Mr. Wang has persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted this proceeding in a vexatious manner.
[49] I am also of the view that in the interests of justice, Mr. Wang should be prevented from instituting new appeals or motions that could delay the trial of this 2012 action in June 2026.
[50] The defendant asked for costs on a substantial indemnity basis. I decline to order costs. Mr. Wang is in receipt of social assistance and this order is a necessary step to save further costs and achieve a final resolution of the matter when costs can be finally determined.
Conclusion
[51] I order that the plaintiff shall not institute any new motions or appeals in action CV-12-00447544-000 except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Ontario.
Des Rosiers J.
Released: March 13, 2026