Frivolous and vexatious

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-24
CLNP Page ID:	1902
Page Categories:	Landlord & Tenant (Residential)
Citation:	Frivolous and vexatious, CLNP 1902, <6m>, retrieved on 2024-04-24
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2022/04/09

EAT-49910-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 62084 (ON LTB)

13. Moreover, this application was an abuse of process given that the Tenant made several serious allegations against the Landlord, only to withdraw all of them but one. The one remaining allegation was clearly devoid of merit. While I appreciate that the Tenant is not represented, an allegation that the Landlord’s failure to charge her more rent has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment is on its very face absurd. It does not require a sophisticated understanding of landlord-tenant law to appreciate that the Tenant gains a benefit if the Landlord charges her less rent than the maximum permitted.

B. The Landlord’s Request for Costs and Finding that Tenant is a Vexatious Litigant

14. At the conclusion of the hearing, DL requested that the Tenant be ordered to pay a small portion of the Landlord’s costs in defending this application. DL requested costs of$400.00 representing the one hour of preparation that was required in advance of each hearing date and the one hour of services that was required for DL to attend each of the hearings.

(...)

20. The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “frivolous” in the legal context as meaning “having no sound basis” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frivolous, accessed on September 25, 2015). For the reasons summarized in paragraphs 13 and 14 above, this application was clearly frivolous, as it had no sound basis.

TET-64475-15-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 38279 (ON LTB)

6. Pursuant to subsection 197(1) the Board may dismiss an application without holding a hearing or refuse to allow an application to be filed if, in the opinion of the Board, the matter is frivolous or vexatious, has not been initiated in good faith or discloses no reasonable cause of action.

7. Because the only allegation of fact in the Tenant’s application here was raised and finally disposed of in a previous application, this subsequent application about the same allegation is vexatious. Requiring the Landlords to participate in a re-hearing of the same allegation would result in an abuse of process.

8. In other words, this application would have properly been dismissed even if the Tenant had abandoned the excess over $25,000. A party cannot file applications over and over again in an effort to get a re-hearing of the same issue just because the first hearing and subsequent appeals did not go their way.

CET-76220-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 86948 (ON LTB)

20. The Tenants alleged that the Landlords’ N5 notice and application was simply used to “cause infliction of emotional harm” to the Tenants and submitted that the N5 and application was frivolous and meritless. The N5 application was resolved by order CEL-75664-18 issued June 21, 2018 as stated above in paragraph 4 of this order. In paragraph 37 of that order dated June 21, 2018, it states the following:

“In my view, the L2 claims do not appear, on a prima facie basis, to be frivolous or filed in bad faith, especially when I note the ambit of the L2 application was narrowed and when I consider the Tenant’s T2 is yet to be heard. Instead, I believe the Landlords have simply exercised their statutory right by raising issues that would need to be heard by the Board, which now have been resolved.”

21. As stated at the hearing, the member who heard the N5 application determined that the application was not frivolous or filed in bad faith. This issue has already been determined, if the Tenants disputed the findings in that order, they ought to have filed a request for review. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the N5 notice and application was frivolous or meritless.

TSL-28198 (Re), 2010 CanLII 37768 (ON LTB)

9. The Tenant’s position was that the Landlord’s application was frivolous and vexatious, and that the Landlord only filed the application because the Tenant had filed a previous application against the Landlord.

10. Based on the evidence provided by the parties, I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s application was frivolous and vexatious. I find, that the Landlord had a bona fide reason to file its application for serious impairment of safety.

Flipca Ltd v Campbell, 2021 CanLII 73633 (ON LTB)

20. The Board’s Interpretation Guideline 3 gives guidance as to how to address a request for costs. Guideline 3 states that the Board has discretion to order costs against a party or a party’s representative when it is found that the party or the representative’s conduct is unreasonable. The first example of unreasonable conduct is bringing a frivolous or vexatious application or motion.

21. I find that this motion is frivolous. It is completely lacking in merit. I say this for the following reasons.

22. There are two factors to consider in a motion such as this: (1) whether the original order/agreement was breached and (2) whether, considering the relevant circumstances (i.e., the circumstances giving rise to the breach, whether the tenancy is viable in the future, etc.), it would not be unfair to set aside the eviction order.

(...)

24. Because the motion is frivolous, it was unreasonable for the Tenant to file it.