Thursday, March 17, 2011

Non-judicial proceedings may properly be considered in making a vexatious litigant order

Bishop v. Bishop, 2011 ONCA 211, released today online, holds:

[8] As for the second ground of appeal – that the motion judge improperly took non-judicial proceedings into account – we agree with the principle enunciated by Dawson J. in Canada Post Corp. v. Varma, [2000] F.C.J. No. 851 at para. 23:

A respondent’s behaviour both in and out of the court has been held to be relevant. In Canada v. Warriner, (1993), 70 F.T.R. 8 (T.D.), McGillis J. noted that frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety had been levelled against lawyers who had acted for or against the respondent. InVojic, supra, McGillis J. took into account the fact that the respondent had failed to appear on several occasions and had shown disregard for the court. In Yorke v. Canada, (1995), 102 F.T.R. 189 (T.D.), Rouleau J. considered a number of factors, including that the respondent’s proceedings in the Federal Court were replete with extreme and unsubstantiated allegations.

[9] We would simply add to that statement by noting that in our view, the institution of non-judicial proceedings can, depending on the circumstances, constitute evidence from which a court may infer that court proceedings commenced by the litigant are not bona fide but the product of someone who is unreasonably obsessed with a cause and likely to pursue vexatious court proceedings on an indefinite basis unless stopped. In this case, we are satisfied that the motion judge was entitled to look to the extra-judicial proceedings commenced by the appellant in assessing the bona fides of the legal proceedings he had commenced and was continuing to pursue

3 comments:

bloggerMaster said...

Perhaps you should also post that the decsion is being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Please consider this link:

http://hrhost.blogspot.com/vexatiousLitigant.htm

bloggerMaster said...

Varma brought many many vexatious proceedings to the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario. None of my proceedings were proven to be vexatious, unless you are willing to consider that a complaint against a lawyer regarding the use of a forged document is vexatious.

I am appealing this finding to the Supreme Court of Canada. Please let me know if you are willing to help me.

Mom's Story:
http://hrhost.blogspot.com/

My Story:
http://hrhost.com/vexatiousLitigant.htm

Anonymous said...

And inside course for these analysis, it emerges that
every dollar spent in the pursuit of an online degree is prone to increase
one's lifetime earnings several times fold. So unless any company completes the formalities and get the necessary certifications they are
able to't start their business. I have witnessed my share of scams, and have actually
done an excellent job avoiding being taken for any
sucker and I'm here to inform you, Ameriplan is just not a scam.


My site: http://onpm.ifvoa.tcsq.qypvthu.loqu.forum.mythem.es