CITATION: Gibson v. City of Hamilton (Access to Housing) et al., 2026 ONSC 4512

COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-306

DATE: 2026-08-04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Carol Ann Gibson

Self-Represented

Appellant

• and -

The City of Hamilton (Access to Housing) and Charity Elliot

J. Ajandi, for the Respondents

Respondents

HEARD: In Writing

DECISION ON RULE 2.1 MOTION

The Honourable Justice J. Krawchenko

Background

1This is a Rule 2.1 motion in relation to the Appellant’s appeal from the assessment hearing decision of Deputy Judge Mongeon of 12 March 2025 in file SC 24-40965.

2In her appeal, the Appellant seeks to set aside decisions made in the Small Claims Court in relation to her claim both at the Settlement Conference stage and subsequently at an Assessment Hearing.

3The basis for the request to revisit the Settlement Conference is that the Appellant alleges that certain defendants lied at the conference and these untruths forced her to withdraw her claims against some of the original defendants, on consent.

4The Appellant further alleges that Deputy Judge Mongeon misinterpreted the facts, failed to consider the evidence (some of which was not then available), exhibited bias and violated her constitutional rights. It should be noted that the endorsement from the Assessment hearing set out that the Appellant was unable to prove any amount of damages.

Rule 2.1 Motion

5The Respondents City of Hamilton (Access to Housing) and Charity Elliot have submitted a Request for Stay or Dismissal Under Rule 2.1

6The parties have all made written submissions in response to the Notice That Proceedings May Be Stayed Or Dismissed Under Rule 2.1 which I have reviewed and considered, along with having reviewed the Notice of Appeal, Second Amended Notice of Motion and Motion Record.

7Rule 2.1 is intended to provide a summary procedure that permits a judge to quickly weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. A frivolous claim is one that lacks a legal basis, a vexatious claim is one instituted without reasonable grounds or is brought were it is obvious that it cannot succeed, and an abuse of process is one where the proceeding is inconsistent with the objectives of public policy.

8In Auguste v. Ottawa Police Services et al., 2025 ONSC 894, the court identified the applicable principles that were to be considered in the context of a Rule 2.1.01 those being that drafting deficiencies in pleadings should be overlooked if it appears that the substantive claim is otherwise viable, that the abusive nature of the proceedings should be evident on the face of the pleadings themselves, that the 2.1.01 procedure not be used as a substitute for a pleadings motion, and that the purpose of the Rule 2.1.01 process was to nip matters in the bud to protect opposing parties from inappropriate expenditure of costs and to protect the courts limited resources.

Analysis

9In reviewing the materials provided as noted above, I have instructed myself to overlook drafting deficiencies given the fact that the Appellant is self-represented and not legally trained. Notwithstanding the drafting issues, on their face, the substantive claims raised in the Applicant’s materials are not viable and cannot be cured by revision. Here, absent a determination under Rule 2.1.01, the Responding parties would be put to costs to address the appeal, and limited court resources would be taxed.

10In Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, the Ontario Court of Appeal endorsed the analysis of Justice Yves-Maire Morisette of the Quebec Court of Appeal set out in a 2019 article entitled “Querulous and Vexatious Litigants as a Disorder of a Modern Legal System”. The Court listed the hallmarks of vexatious proceedings or litigants in the context of rule 2.1. which I will not repeat suffice it to say that this case bears many of those noted and unmistakable characteristics.

11As stated above, the Appellant’s appeal is based on allegations that she was forced to withdraw her claims against some of the original defendants on consent and without costs due to their lies and further that the determination of her claim on the basis of finding no damages proven came as a result judicial impropriety at the hearing and not for the lack of evidence. The Appellants further offers unsustainable allegations and gratuitous complaints against members of the legal profession and the two Deputy Judges involved in the case, and references to RCMP investigations, military procedures all forming part of a confusing and disjointed presentation.

12This is a clear case where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the written materials and for that reason, I dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.