Appellant made serious and baseless allegations about opposing counsel, tried to relitigate issues
The Ontario Court of Appeal for Ontario has dismissed an appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and abusive due to the matter’s concerning history and the appellant’s failure to perfect filings, pay costs, and comply with rules and court orders.
The appellant commenced the underlying action in M.E. v. Ontario, 2022 ONCA 714 via a statement of claim issued in April 2016. She also filed a contempt motion against numerous respondents, including the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAST).
The CAST opposed the contempt motion and brought a summary judgment motion. The appellant, another respondent, and the province also moved for summary judgment. A judge granted the CAST and Ontario summary judgment motions and dismissed the appellant’s action and contempt motion.
In June 2020, the appellate court upheld the contempt motion’s dismissal. However, the appellate court allowed the appeal from the summary judgment decision relating to the action against the CAST. The appeal was granted on the narrow issue of whether the CAST was liable for damages for the alleged wrongful disclosure of the appellant’s predisposition report to third parties in 2013.
The appellant did not seek leave to appeal from the appellate court’s decision but tried to relitigate before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice the issues that the appellate court had already determined. She also attempted to add new parties, specifically some of the respondents’ counsel, to the action.
Justice Susan Vella, as case management judge, dismissed the appellant’s motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under r. 2.1.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
In November 2021, the appellant filed with the appellate court a not-yet-perfected notice of appeal from Vella’s order. This outstanding appeal asked for a sealing order, leave to amend her pleadings by adding six more lawyers to the action, and relief from compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
In January 2022, Justice Michael Tulloch dismissed the appellant’s motions upon finding that there was no jurisdiction to amend the pleadings. The appellant filed a not-yet-perfected motion for a review of Tulloch’s decision by a panel of the appellate court. She apparently wanted to file a motion for criminal contempt against various parties, including the respondents’ counsel and Crown counsel.
Last July, correspondence from the appellate court notified the parties that it stayed the appeal and was considering dismissing the appeal under r. 2.1.01.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under r. 2.1.01. The appellate court, to prevent further abuses of process, disallowed the appellant from filing further materials without leave of a judge.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the appellant’s notice of appeal contained three extremely vague grounds, namely “miscarriage of justice for the second time,” “criminal law order conflicts with civil,” and “intrinsic and extrinsic fraud on the court, orders obtained by fraud.” None of these amounted to arguable grounds of appeal, the appellate court said.
The appellate court found that the appellant made serious and baseless allegations about opposing counsel, including that they acted illegally and fraudulently, misled and deceived the courts, subjected her to psychological torture, illegally modified her file from when she was in care, and participated in concealed criminal conduct.
The Court of Appeal further found that the appellant was barraging its email account with communications complaining about “illegal practitioners” on the other side, accusing counsel of contempt of court, claiming “obstruction, torture and perjury,” alleging that the Ontario’s attorney general committed “grave human rights violations,” and requesting the conviction of the CAST and the Crown in absentia.
The appellate court noted the fact that the appellant was appealing from a case management judge’s decision to dismiss her motion for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Justice Vella’s decision had a good basis since the motion was a clear attempt to relitigate what the appellate court already decided, the Court of Appeal said.
