Court finds proposed appeal had so little merit that an extension was not justified
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed a former lawyer’s motion to extend the deadline for perfecting an appeal of an order declaring him a vexatious litigant.
In Grillone (Re), 2026 ONCA 720, the court found the proposed appeal had little merit, despite the appellant meeting the other factors that govern extensions of time.
The appellant previously practised personal injury and insurance law before the Law Society of Ontario revoked his licence after finding professional misconduct. In October 2023, the court declared him bankrupt after one of his creditors, Bluecore Capital Inc., applied for a bankruptcy order against him.
He subsequently challenged the bankruptcy order through multiple proceedings. Courts repeatedly characterized his motions as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
Bluecore sought a vexatious litigant declaration, relying on 13 Superior Court of Justice decisions and four Court of Appeal decisions. The motion judge found that his behaviour met virtually all the indicia of vexatious litigation, including attempts to relitigate resolved matters, failures to comply with court orders, and refusal to accept final judicial outcomes.
The appellant filed his appeal in February 2026 but failed to perfect it within the prescribed deadline. He subsequently sought an extension.
Under Rule 3.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, courts consider the intention to appeal, length and explanation of delay, prejudice to the respondent and merits of the proposed appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had intended to appeal within the required period and made diligent efforts to meet the deadline. It also found that Bluecore had not identified any prejudice specifically caused by the delay in perfecting the appeal. The court therefore concluded that the appellant had satisfied the first three factors of the test for an extension of time.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s main argument that the motion judge should have reviewed the evidence underlying earlier judicial decisions before declaring him a vexatious litigant.
The appellant argued that the motion judge lacked a proper evidentiary basis for the declaration because he failed to review approximately 8,000 pages of evidence underlying the earlier decisions. He also claimed the motion judge misapplied case law by failing to consider the litigation's full history and breached procedural fairness by resolving disputed facts without examining the underlying evidence.
The court found that such a review risked turning the vexatious litigant proceeding into a “quasi-appeal and/or a collateral attack” on previous decisions.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the appellant’s arguments concerning alleged misconduct by Bluecore officials and the scope of the vexatious litigant order. It noted that requiring Bluecore to continue responding to proceedings brought by an undischarged bankrupt was arguably inherently prejudicial, as the company would have to spend time and money on litigation expenses that were likely unrecoverable.
The court concluded that the proposed appeal had so little merit that an extension was not justified, despite the appellant satisfying the other factors.
