Ontario Civil


Abuse of process

Application judge was entitled to refuse appellant’s standing at hearing

Order found appellant to be vexatious litigant. Application judge denied appellant standing and ejected him from courtroom. Appellant asserted application judge failed to make allowances for his debilitating medical illness. Appellant asserted application was brought in inconvenient location that prevented him from having benefit of representation. Appellant asserted he had some success in litigation. Appellant appealed asserting he was not accorded right to be heard. Appeal dismissed. Application judge was entitled to refuse appellant’s standing at hearing because he failed to comply with earlier peremptory order that unless he filed appearance and responding material by specified dates, he would not have standing at hearing. Appellant repeatedly disrupted hearing and made abusive comments to judge. Judge was entitled to have appellant escorted from courtroom. Appellant’s illness was not relevant factor. Appellant’s illness did not prevent him from initiating and participating in proceedings. Location was not inconvenient to appellant and argument that appellant was unrepresented because of location of hearing was unsupported by evidence. Minor and occasional success appellant enjoyed did not detract from his long history of instituting multiple and meritless proceedings and his vexatious manner of conducting them.

Hodder v. Lindhorst (Jan. 8, 2016, Ont. C.A., R.G. Juriansz J.A., C.W. Hourigan J.A., and L.B. Roberts J.A., CA C60068) 262 A.C.W.S. (3d) 640.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?