Litigant saying judicial system prejudiced against her is vexatious: Ontario Court of Appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal has found that the evidentiary record in a recent case supported the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant in a tenancy case vexatiously and maliciously conducted proceedings against the respondents.

In LeBlanc v. Alghamdi, 2022 ONCA 687, Ian LeBlanc made arrangements via the Airbnb platform for the appellant’s renting of the home owned by his parents, who were the two other respondents in this case. The respondents notified the appellant that they wanted to terminate the arrangement, which was subject to a 30-day notice period, but the appellant refused to leave.

In March 2019, the respondents again gave notice to the appellant and entered the property to inspect it, which led to a confrontation. The appellant alleged that her home was broken into, LeBlanc and Ottawa Police Service officers physically and sexually tortured her, the responding officers were racist, and the attack left her half-naked and bleeding.

According to LeBlanc, the appellant pushed him against the stairs. He called 911, sent his parents to the second floor for their safety, stayed in the stairwell, and recorded the events on his phone. The video allegedly showed the appellant grabbing an object and cutting her thumb to simulate an injury.

The application judge declared the appellant a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, discontinued the action against the respondents, and prohibited the appellant from commencing or continuing any proceeding against the respondents without leave of a Superior Court judge.

The appellant made the following arguments:

• The application judge acted without or in excess of her jurisdiction in interpreting s. 140
• The judge misapprehended the evidence presented
• The judge’s reasons were inadequate and obstructed meaningful appellate review
• The judge’s decision prejudicially affected the appellant
• The judge lied when she expressed views about the contents of LeBlanc’s video
• The whole judicial system was prejudiced against her
• She was entitled to an adjournment
• The Human Rights Commission’s intervention was necessary because she was allegedly disabled due to the confrontation.

Appellant a vexatious litigant: appellate court

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused to admit the proposed fresh evidence upon finding that it could not assist the appellant’s case. The appellant conducted the proceedings against the respondents out of malice and in a vexatious manner, the appellate court ruled.

To reach this conclusion, the appellate court considered the multiplicity of proceedings, the way that the appellant pursued this litigation, her unsupported and far-fetched claims, the evidence of malice, and the unpaid costs.

The appellate court noted that the appellant filed three different actions arising out of the March 2019 confrontation. The appeals that the appellant brought from procedural orders issued throughout the proceedings lacked any apparent merit, the court said.

According to the appellate court, the documents that the appellant filed in the proceedings:

• expressed vitriol toward those who did not agree with her
• alleged broad and seemingly far-fetched conspiracies
• included scandalous comments about the respondents’ personal traits
• had many hyperbolic and unsupported statements
• accused the application judge, police, lawyers, and numerous agencies of lies, fraud, or conspiracy
• sought relief that a reasonable person would not expect to obtain.

The appellate court found the following of the appellant’s claims not credible: her argument that she received no notice of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s hearing and that she simply happened to be present at the place, date, and time of that tribunal’s hearing, and her allegation that LeBlanc was an agent of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and was part of a conspiracy to harm her.

Regarding evidence of malice, the appellate court noted LeBlanc’s claim that the appellant waylaid him at the courthouse and spat on him. A security camera captured this event. Police saw the video footage and charged the appellant with assault.

Next, the appellate court found it reasonable, under the circumstances, to infer that LeBlanc’s video recording did not assist the appellant’s case. Nothing in the video supported the appellant’s allegations that she was tortured, sexually assaulted, and left half-naked and bleeding, the court said.

Lastly, the application judge’s decision to limit her order to proceedings involving the respondents was beneficial to the appellant and was a permissible exercise of her discretion, the appellate court concluded.