Unknown

The plaintiff commenced an action against a cafe seeking damages for alleged human rights violations against a disabled friend, building defects, and his subsequent banishment from the premises which caused him a loss of social life.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The court found that the plaintiff had no standing to sue for building defects and that the law offers no remedy for the loss of social life resulting from being excluded from a private business.

The action was dismissed as frivolous as it had no reasonable chance of success.

The plaintiffs commenced an action seeking $9 million in damages and various public remedies following the suspension of a student and subsequent unsuccessful human rights complaints.

Several defendants submitted written requests under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have the action dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the pleadings exhibited common attributes of vexatious litigation, including attempting to re-litigate issues already decided by the Human Rights Tribunal and seeking relief beyond the court's jurisdiction.

The court ordered that the action be stayed and directed the Registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiffs that the court is considering dismissing the action.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to pay $100,000 in interim costs and disbursements, as well as a $12,000 costs order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance but rather involved fact-specific determinations regarding the moving party's ability to pay and his financial interconnectedness with his wealthy father.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and set off against a previous costs order.

The plaintiff commenced two actions in Hamilton that were substantially similar to actions previously dismissed in Toronto as frivolous and vexatious.

The defendants requested that the Hamilton actions be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found that the actions appeared on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as they attempted to re-litigate previously dismissed claims.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the actions should not be dismissed, and stayed the actions in the interim.

The plaintiff filed an 83-page fresh statement of claim following a prior order that dismissed her action against all but two defendants and directed her to limit her claim to a slip and fall accident.

The fresh claim continued to allege a vast criminal conspiracy involving numerous individuals, including politicians and judges.

The court found the fresh claim appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 for the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed.

The action was stayed pending the outcome.

The applicant commenced a proceeding seeking an order requiring all municipalities to cease issuing building and demolition permits unless the projects conformed to certain affordable housing or investment value standards.

The respondent requested a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the subject matter was not properly raised in a civil proceeding and that a proceeding that cannot succeed is properly characterized as frivolous or vexatious.

The court ordered the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant that the court is considering dismissing the application, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The plaintiff commenced a third action against the defendant for the same relief, following the dismissal of a previous action under Rule 2.1.

The court stayed the action and issued a notice in Form 2.1A, to which the plaintiff did not respond.

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

The plaintiff commenced a second action against the defendant for the same relief sought in a previously dismissed lawsuit.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, to which the plaintiff did not respond.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, noting that repeatedly suing for the same relief justifies the use of the attenuated process under Rule 2.1.

The court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The statement of claim arose from a slip and fall at a Beer Store but included wild conspiracy allegations against numerous public figures and institutions.

The court found the lawsuit could not succeed and was frivolous on its face.

The action was dismissed against all defendants except The Beer Store and the City of Toronto, and the plaintiff was granted leave to deliver an amended statement of claim limited to the slip and fall accident.

The applicant sought a declaration that Property Assessment Change Notices issued for the 2012 and 2013 taxation years were invalid.

The notices added the value of a newly constructed hotel to the property assessment, resulting in significant additional municipal and education taxes.

The applicant argued the assessment corporation could only issue revised assessments where an omission was inadvertent and not where the property was deliberately excluded.

The court held that the governing statute permits reassessment where property has been omitted from the tax roll regardless of the reason for the omission.

The court found the hotel had been omitted due to negligence, error, inadvertence or mistake and upheld the validity of the revised assessments.

The self-represented plaintiff filed a 400-page Statement of Claim alleging medical malpractice resulting in his wife's death.

The court found the pleading unintelligible and potentially frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court stayed the action under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the WSIB and WSIAT regarding an unsuccessful worker's compensation claim.

The court noted that Ontario law does not permit a claimant to sue the WSIB or the Tribunal when a claim is disallowed.

Finding the action frivolous, the court applied the abbreviated process under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed the action with costs.

The plaintiff brought an application appearing to invoke section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, despite not being subject to a section 140(1) order.

The court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, noting that the subject matter had already been decided against the plaintiff and a previous attempt to re-litigate the case had also been dismissed.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff's claim related to an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim.

The court found the statement of claim appeared frivolous on its face and raised concerns about abusive litigation.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff's claim related to an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim.

The court found the statement of claim appeared frivolous on its face and raised concerns about abusive litigation.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

On a Rule 2.1 screening process, the court reviewed an application naming multiple telecommunications companies as respondents.

The materials included no affidavit and consisted largely of unsworn documents and legal materials.

The court noted that the notice of application made no allegations or claims for relief against one respondent and raised concerns that the proceeding might be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court directed the registrar to provide notice that dismissal of the application against that respondent was under consideration and stayed the proceeding against that respondent pending written submissions.

The court considered whether to dismiss an action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The statement of claim consisted largely of annotated correspondence and failed to plead material facts as required by Rule 25.06(1).

Despite being invited to provide a properly drafted amended pleading, the plaintiff submitted additional annotations that did not disclose a legally recognizable cause of action.

The court concluded that the claim bore the hallmarks of proceedings appropriately dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The action was dismissed with costs to the defendant, subject to assessment.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to determine whether the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Notice was provided to the plaintiff inviting written submissions.

No submissions were received within the prescribed 15‑day period.

The court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process and ordered it dismissed.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to determine whether the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Notice was provided to the plaintiff inviting written submissions.

No submissions were received within the prescribed 15‑day period.

The court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process and ordered it dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against the City of Toronto for $100,000, alleging that municipal lifeguards illicitly targeted him for swimming too slowly in the fast lane.

The plaintiff claimed breaches of the Statute of Frauds and the Competition Act.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the exercise of discretion by lifeguards cannot be challenged in a civil action for damages and that the statutes relied upon had no application, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.