|
RTA - Appeals - Frivolous and Vexatious [RCP s.2.1.01]. Delic v. Henley Group Ltd.
In Delic v. Henley Group Ltd. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court allowed an RTA appellate motion for "an order dismissing the Tenant's appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process, under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure":Analysis:
[13] Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure gives this Court the authority to dismiss an appeal if it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
[14] The purpose of r. 2.1 is "nipping in the bud actions which are frivolous and vexatious in order to protect the parties opposite from inappropriate costs and to protect the court from misallocation of scarce resources": see Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664, at para. 3 and Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6100, at para. 9.
[15] Rule 2.1.01 is a blunt instrument, reserved for the clearest of cases. Rule 2.1 must be "interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process": Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 81 C.P.C. (7th) 258, at para. 8, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 36753; Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625, 138 O.R. (3d) 581, at para. 12.
[16] The judge must focus on the pleadings and read the statement of claim generously and assume that the assertions of fact are true unless they are obviously implausible or ridiculous: Sumner v. Ottawa (Police Services), 2023 ONCA 140, at para. 9 and Scaduto, at paras. 9, 11-12.
[17] There are two conditions generally required: first, the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding should be apparent on the face of the pleadings, and second, there should generally be a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process of r. 2.1: Scaduto, at paras. 8 and 9, citing Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801, at para. 9.
|
