Shayna Levine-Poch

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The statement of claim consisted of only two lines alleging harassment, racism, hate crime, and defamatory libel, claiming $1 million, but lacked any material facts or particulars.

The plaintiff failed to provide submissions when notified of the court's concerns.

The court found the action to be clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed it without costs.

The court considered whether to stay or dismiss an action under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, self-represented, filed a claim against four defendants arising from a family law proceeding in which she was unsuccessful.

The plaintiff's claim was based on assertions regarding jury trial rights in family law proceedings, allegations of interference with her rights, and complaints about statutory personhood and legal representation.

The court found the claim was readily recognizable as devoid of merit and dismissed the action.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The statement of claim failed to articulate a legally recognized cause of action, instead making broad, unsupported, and incoherent allegations.

The plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide submissions but did not do so.

The court found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the action without costs.

The appellant municipality was charged with contraventions under the Endangered Species Act for road maintenance activities that allegedly harmed an endangered butterfly species.

The municipality sought declaratory relief stating that its road maintenance obligations under the Municipal Act superseded the Endangered Species Act, exempting it from compliance.

The application judge dismissed the application as premature and not ripe for adjudication, noting the municipality had not attempted to obtain a permit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the issues were not justiciable and should be addressed either through the permit process or in the ongoing quasi-criminal prosecution.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister's Designee ordering him to repair and plug 62 hazardous petroleum wells owned by a bankrupt company.

The company was previously run by the applicant's deceased father.

The applicant, who had no financial interest in the company, volunteered to help his ailing father by reading meters and communicating with regulators.

The Designee found the applicant was an 'operator' under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act.

The Divisional Court held this decision was unreasonable, as there was no evidence the applicant had decision-making authority or the power to influence his father's decisions.

The application was allowed and the Designee's order was set aside.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Solicitor General's decision to build a new correctional facility in Kemptville, alleging violations of the Planning Act.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay, as it was commenced almost two years after the decision was announced, well beyond the 30-day limitation period under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the applicants had sufficient information to commence proceedings much earlier but chose to pursue political avenues instead.

The court also found that the government suffered substantial prejudice due to the delay, having spent millions of dollars and two years of effort on the project.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the Ministry of the Solicitor General to add several categories of documents to the Record of Proceeding in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenges the decision to build a new correctional facility on a site in Kemptville, alleging violations of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants were seeking impermissible documentary discovery and that the requested documents related to core policy decisions regarding site selection, rather than the justiciable legal issue of whether the decision violated the Planning Act.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the renewal of a vendor and builder licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Attorney General sought to make submissions on the proper interpretation of the 'integrity and honesty' provision, arguing it would impact similar provisions in numerous other statutes.

The court found that the Attorney General met the test for intervention, noting the public interest and the Attorney General's unique position to assist the court on broader statutory implications.

The motion was granted on consent, subject to conditions.

The respondents (moving parties) brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' application for judicial review of a decision to build a correctional facility in Kemptville, arguing the application was filed beyond the 30-day limitation period under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicants opposed the motion and sought an extension of time, arguing the decision was only communicated via a press release and town hall meeting without formal reasons.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the application should be dismissed for delay, noting the unique circumstances, lack of formal reasons, and potential non-compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding agricultural land.

The motion to dismiss was adjourned to be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court.