Vexatious Litigant decision, Terracorp et al. v. John Shane Becky et al.
A judge has jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act to find that an appellant is a vexatious litigant and, as a consequence, to order that no further proceedings be instituted by them without leave of the Court. A s. 140 order does not deny a vexatious litigant access to the courts. The additional initial oversight by the court is a procedural step that enforces the requirement that the litigant not behave in a vexatious manner. The vexatious litigant is not deprived of the right to bring proceedings. Rather, the burden is shifted: the vexatious litigant must establish to the Court’s satisfaction that there is a prima facie ground for the proposed proceedings.
Earlier this year, Camberwell House Litigation obtained a vexatious litigant order against Mr. John Shane Becky and the Estate of the late Mary Ilene Becky for repeatedly abusing the court’s processes. In the words of the Factum submitted to the Court:
“[those] Respondents [had] brought or made necessary sixteen … separate tribunal or court proceedings since May of 2011… From May 17, 2011 to July 31, 2015 they [had] either necessitated (through nonpayment of rent or misconduct) or brought a Landlord and Tenant Board … or Superior Court … action or Divisional Court appeal, on average, every 96 days. If one only counts the proceedings in which the … Applicants [seeking the vexatious litigant order] are involved, that is [an] average [of] one every 80 days.”
|This post is done by Camberwell House for informational, discussion and educational purposes only. It is NOT to provide specific legal advice and does not do so. The older the post is, the higher the risk that the information in it is incorrect: Camberwell does not delete older posts. There is no lawyer-client relationship between you and Camberwell House and you should seek your own lawyer and obtain legal advice tailored to your circumstances.