Federal Court

Civil Practice and Procedure


Vexatious proceedings / Abuse of process

Plaintiff declared vexatious litigant for bringing repetitive, nonsensical, offensive claims

Plaintiff initiated three proceedings related to constitutional challenges to medicinal marijuana regulatory system that were stayed or dismissed, and one claim that challenged prohibition on magic mushrooms. Plaintiff initiated six actions that alleged mistreatment by court due to plaintiff’s incarceration and inability to self-medicate with controlled substances, which were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Three costs orders made against plaintiff remained unpaid. Plaintiff brought three claims that attempted to impugn appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judge; two were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and third led to this motion. Defendant brought motion to declare plaintiff vexatious litigant and prohibit him from continuing this or other actions, or initiating further proceedings without leave. Motion granted. Plaintiff’s claims were repetitive, multiple, and replete with allegations that were nonsensical, confusing and offensive. Plaintiff had pattern of incessant, abusive, threatening and insulting communications to Crown counsel, court and staff, and persisted with this conduct despite warnings and court orders. Plaintiff met all hallmarks of vexatious litigant. Plaintiff’s threats impacted judicial practice, he relitigated matters and expressed intention to continue with this abuse of process. Plaintiff’s pleadings were frivolous, incomprehensible and alleged misconduct, corruption and incompetency against court and counsel. Previous efforts to curtail plaintiff’s behaviour were futile and he refused to accept authority of court. S.7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not engaged, and order did not bar plaintiff from access to courts.

Hunt v. R. (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 789, 2017 FC 251, Michael L. Phelan J. (F.C.).


cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?