BACKGROUND
Ms. Peters commenced proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice seeking a declaration that Mr. Rahbar stood in the place of a parent to her children (loco parentis), among other relief. Mr. Rahbar brought a motion for summary judgment, seeking the dismissal of Ms. Peters’ application in its entirety. Justice Jenner granted the motion, and Ms. Peters’ application was dismissed due to bad faith throughout the proceedings. Justice Jenner also ordered her to pay full indemnity costs to Mr. Rahbar in the amount of $13,560 (the “original costs Order”).
Ms. Peters subsequently served a notice of appeal; however, the appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process, and the court ordered her to pay an additional $2,000 in costs.
Mr. Rahbar now moves for an order declaring Ms. Peters a vexatious litigant. He also seeks security for costs in relation to the original costs Order.
Mr. Rahbar now moves for an order declaring Ms. Peters a vexatious litigant. He also seeks security for costs in relation to the original costs Order. Mr. Rahbar argues that Ms. Peters has harassed him for years and is now using the justice system to do so. He claims her case in the Ontario Court of Justice had no legal basis and that her meritless appeal is vexatious. He seeks to prevent her from proceeding with the appeal unless she posts $10,000 as security for costs.
Ms. Peters denies the allegations and asks for the motion to be dismissed. She accuses Mr. Rahbar of being abusive and states she does not understand why Justice Jenner dismissed her application or awarded significant costs against her. She also asserts that, as a single parent, she cannot afford to pay additional costs.
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Vexatious Litigant
Under Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, a judge may declare a person a vexatious litigant if they have persistently brought or conducted proceedings without reasonable grounds. This declaration can restrict the person from starting or continuing legal proceedings without court approval.
A party may be declared a vexatious litigant if their conduct is persistent, lacks reasonable grounds, and is vexatious. The factors a court must consider in determining whether a litigant is vexatious are set out in Land Michener Lash Johnston v Fabian, 1987 CanLII 172 (ON SC) [Lang Michener]. These factors include bringing actions on issues already decided by a competent court, pursuing claims with no chance of success, and initiating litigation for improper purposes such as harassment or oppression. Vexatious litigants are also known for recycling arguments across multiple proceedings, filing lawsuits against opposing counsel, and persistently appealing unsuccessful decisions. A litigant’s failure to pay court-ordered costs is also a strong indicator of vexatious behaviour.
In this case, the court found that Ms. Peters’ “seriously troubling” behaviour met many of the factors set out in Lang Michener. Her conduct demonstrated an unrelenting attack on Mr. Rahbar and his counsel, as well as on the justice system, including the courts, judiciary, and police. Ms. Peters’ unfounded accusations ranged from hateful name-calling to potential extortion. The court also noted that her conduct showed an unfettered disregard for the consequences of her actions and their impact on others, had driven up the costs of litigation for Mr. Rahbar, and had wasted the court’s resources.
Accordingly,the court declared Ms. Peters a vexatious litigant and ordered that she cannot institute or continue proceedings without the leave of a Superior Court judge. The court further ordered that to continue her appeal, she must first pay $10,000 into court as security for costs.