View source for Vexatious Litigant (LTB)

Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

• The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, editors.
• You do not have permission to edit pages in the Case Law namespace.

---

You can view and copy the source of this page.

[[Category:Hearing Process (LTB)]] {{Citation: | categories = [Hearing Process (LTB)] | shortlink = }} ==TST-99108-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134616 (ON LTB)<ref name="TST-99108-18"/>== 7. The Interim Order also provided notice that it was considering making a finding that the Tenant is a vexatious litigant with respect to the tenancy at issue in these applications. 8. Both parties were invited to provide the Board with submissions on whether I should exercise my authority to dismiss these applications as an abuse of process and declare the Tenant to be a vexatious litigant. 9. Based on the submissions received, I find there is no merit to any of these applications and they shall be dismissed accordingly. I also find that the Tenant is a vexatious litigant for the reasons that follow. :... 16. The Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Common Rules (“the Common Rules”) provide: ::A8.1 The tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes. ::A8.2 Where the tribunal finds that a person has persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner, the tribunal may find that person to be a vexatious litigant and dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of process for that reason. It may also require a person found to be a vexatious litigant to obtain permission from the tribunal to commence further proceedings or take further steps in a proceeding. 17. Pursuant to the Common Rules, the Board has the authority to find a person to be a vexatious litigant. Such a determination may come as a result of a motion made by a party or the Board’s own motion. Once the process has been initiated the Board is required to examine the facts of each case applying the test established in the leading case <i>Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, [1987] O.J. No . 355 (H.C.) at paragraph 20</i><ref name="Fabian"/> the Court summarised the factors which may be considered in determining whether an individual is a vexatious litigant first described by the Ontario Court of Appeal in <i>Foy v. Foy (No.2) (1979), 1979 CanLII 1631 (ON CA), 26 O.R. (2d) 220</i><ref name="Foy"/>: ::<u>(a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding;</u> ::(b) <u>where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed</u>, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious; ::(c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights; ::(d) it is <u>a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented</u>, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings; ::(e) <u>in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action</u>; ::(f) <u>the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious</u>; and ::(g) the <u>respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from</u> judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings. ::Emphasis is added 18. It is unnecessary for all of the above factors to be present in order for an individual to be declared a vexatious litigant. On this issue, see <i>Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 CanLII 7815 at para. 16 (Ont. C.A.)</i><ref name="Currie"/>. 19. In order to declare the Tenant to be a vexatious litigant, I must be satisfied on an objective standard that the applicant has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted herself in a vexatious manner during the proceedings (see Foy at para. 26<ref name="Foy"/>). <ref name="Currie">Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 CanLII 7815 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1fwcc>, retrieved on 2022-08-31</ref> <ref name="Foy">Foy v. Foy (No. 2), 1979 CanLII 1631 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1k52>, retrieved on 2022-08-31</ref> <ref name="TST-99108-18">TST-99108-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134616 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/j6w48>, retrieved on 2022-08-31</ref> <ref name="Fabian">Re Lang Michener and Fabian, 1987 CanLII 172 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/1p77f>, retrieved on 2022-08-31</ref> ==Kalra v M F Arnsby Management, 2021 CanLII 76870 (ON LTB)<ref name="Kalra"/>== 2. The Landlord requested two further orders: first, a determination that the Tenants “have persistently instituted vexatious proceedings” with a finding that the Tenants are “vexatious litigants” pursuant to Rule A8.2 of the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario (SJTO) Common Rules; and second, an order requiring the Tenants to pay party costs to the Landlord. :... 10. Declaring a party to be a vexatious litigant is an extreme remedy. Although I am satisfied that the Tenants’ repeated filing of applications, which generally lacked sufficient detail to proceed, was unreasonable, a waste of time and amounted to an abuse of process, I am not prepared to declare the Tenants to be vexatious litigants at this time. I say this because despite the fact that the Tenants’ four applications against the Landlord bear some of the factors set out in Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, looking at the whole history of the matter, and considering the nature of the applications, am of the view that such a declaration is premature. The Tenants attempted to comply with the directions of the Board, and it is not clear why they did not attend the hearing of the three application before the Board on January 6, 2021. That determination of being vexatious litigants, however, may come in the future, provided the Tenants continue to file applications lacking sufficient particulars. <ref name="Kalra">Kalra v M F Arnsby Management, 2021 CanLII 76870 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jhn9r>, retrieved on 2022-08-31</ref> ==SWT-01767-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 49034 (ON LTB)<ref name="SWT-01767-17"/>== 12. In order to declare the Tenant to be a vexatious litigant, I must be satisfied on an objective standard that the applicant has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted himself in a vexatious manner during the proceedings.[6] While the Tenant’s assertions in the earlier review request were far from compelling, I do not find that the request along with the present defective application, establishes a pattern of vexatious litigation. It must also be noted that the Tenant’s request for a review was ultimately filed in response to the Landlords’ own application, not the Tenant’s. 13. While a search of past applications through Board records reveals several past proceedings in which “HW” was either an applicant or a respondent, all of these applications were heard in the Toronto area, specifically at the Board’s Toronto South office, some distance from the present proceedings. Although the Tenant’s name is far from common, without further evidence, I cannot find that this Tenant and the Toronto HW are one and the same. 14. On the Landlords’ own evidence, the Tenant tends to raise baseless complaints directly to the Landlords, resulting in wasted time and resources. Only very recently has he resorted to actions through the Board. This conduct could make him arguably a nuisance tenant and possibly vexatious in a general sense, but not a vexatious litigant within the definition described by the Courts above. 15. In light of all of the circumstances, I do not find that the Landlords have demonstrated a sufficient pattern of abuse to the Board’s processes or that he “persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner” that would warrant a finding that he is a vexatious litigant. It may well be that the Landlords’ motion is simply premature. 16. This order contains all of the reasons in this matter and no further reasons will issue. <ref name="SWT-01767-17">SWT-01767-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 49034 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/h5346>, retrieved on 2022-08-31</ref> ==References==

Return to Vexatious Litigant (LTB).