Superior Court orders personal injury plaintiff to stop emailing defence counsel, court staff

Judge Paul Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a personal injury action and directed the plaintiff, who was previously found a vexatious litigant, to communicate with the defendant or the court only by delivering hard-copy materials. 

The parties were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Mississauga on Mar. 5, 2010. On Feb. 29, 2012, the plaintiff brought a claim for injury and other damages. In April 2016, he indicated that he would represent himself after the removal of his solicitors of record. 

On Feb. 12, 2020, a justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal. The plaintiff appealed this finding. 

The defendant moved to quash the plaintiff’s appeal. Alternatively, the defendant sought to stay or dismiss the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise abusive of process. 

On Feb. 3, 2021, in Wang v. Banton, 2021 ONCA 72, a three-justice panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motion to quash the appeal, without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking an extension of time from the Divisional Court and leave to appeal to that court if successful. 

Vexatious conduct finding

Last Mar. 13, in Wang v. Banton, 2026 ONSC 1553, a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the plaintiff not to initiate further proceedings or appeals without leave of a Superior Court judge. 

Finding the plaintiff’s conduct vexatious, the judge noted that the plaintiff brought “persistent appeals” against an associate judge’s order, sent emails to many individuals unrelated to the litigation, and “flooded” defence counsel’s inbox. 

On May 29, the defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on three grounds. Specifically, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff failed to file or produce: 

• a physician’s opinion evidence of “permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function,” as required by s. 4.3 of O-Reg 318/03 to meet s. 267.5 of Ontario’s Insurance Act, 1990 
• evidence of his pre- and post-accident earning capacity 
• evidence of any out-of-pocket expenses on which a factual trier could award damages 

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $100,084.61, not including the $16,896.63 in outstanding costs from numerous interlocutory orders. 

Action dismissed

Last June 1, in Wang v. Banton, 2026 ONSC 3222, Judge Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the action based on the plaintiff’s failure to attend. 

According to Schabas, the matter should conclude after 14 years. Schabas noted: 

• the long history of the matter, struck from the trial list at least twice previously 
• the complete lack of evidence 
• the plaintiff’s failure to meet the requirements to pursue his action 

Acknowledging the vexatious conduct finding, Schabas noted that the plaintiff: 

• pursued multiple interlocutory steps with little regard to the merits 
• sent numerous emails to counsel and many others to complain about the case for at least the past four years 
• accused defence counsel of fraud 
• failed to attend any court hearing since Dec. 1, 2025 
• showed a disrespect for the court 
• misused the court’s procedure 

Schabas also found that the plaintiff: 

• clearly knew that trial had commenced 
• chose to communicate with Schabas via email 
• failed to attend, which was the next step in the plaintiff’s vexatious conduct 
• should have provided evidence to support his case years ago 
• should have shown up and requested an adjournment if needed 

Schabas ordered the plaintiff to pay $100,000 in costs of the action, above the outstanding costs in the defendant’s favour. Schabas deemed substantial indemnity costs appropriate, given the plaintiff’s vexatious conduct. 

Lastly, the court directed the plaintiff not to email the defendant’s counsel, the court, and its staff and judges.