A union whose members include federal workers sought the order against a former member
The Federal Court of Appeal granted a labour union’s application to declare that one of its former members is a vexatious litigant this week, noting that the man has been a party to at least 66 court decisions.
In a ruling Monday, FCA Justice René LeBlanc wrote that his decision was based on numerous examples of Paul Abi-Mansour’s “inappropriate behaviour.” If he had ruled otherwise, “I am of the view that this court can expect for Mr. Abi-Mansour’s inappropriate and ungovernable conduct to persist,” LeBlanc said.
He noted that the FCA had rendered 21 of the 66 court decisions involving Abi-Mansour as a party.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing 240,000 members, including federal government workers, filed its application to stop Abi-Mansour from initiating or continuing any FCA proceedings without the court’s permission.
The union also asked that the court only grant this permission when Abi-Mansour, who was previously a union member and federal government employee, had fully paid all the costs that the FCA had previously awarded against him.
According to the union, Abi-Mansour “has been a serial litigator since 2010, at the earliest.” The union alleged that courts had denounced his behaviour multiple times but that he continued to act vexatiously when he filed a complaint against the union with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.
The union argued that Abi-Mansour’s behaviour in the case “warrants, on its own, a vexatious litigant order” but should be considered in the context of his broader litigation history.
LeBlanc noted several examples of Abi-Mansour’s misconduct. These include him making unfounded accusations in court, questioning the impartiality and professionalism of certain judges, bringing frivolous motions to delay court proceedings, making abusive and unsubstantiated comments against opposing counsel, and “maliciously” questioning opposing counsel’s mental health.
In response, Abi-Mansour told the FCA it lacked the jurisdiction to review the union’s application because it was a standalone filing. He argued that a vexatious litigant order can only be obtained through a motion within an existing court proceeding. LeBlanc rejected this argument, citing a 2019 FCA decision that saw standalone applications and motions filed within an existing proceeding “‘as identical and interchangeable,’ both offering the same level of protection in all meaningful procedural respects.”
The court tossed out Abi-Mansour’s argument that a vexatious litigant order would bar his access to justice, ruling that such an order would only regulate his access to the courts, not deny that access altogether.
LeBlanc noted that Abi-Mansour has deliberately ignored previous costs orders issued against him, allowing “rules on garnishment” to play out rather than proactively paying them. He wrote that he agreed with the union “that that position further underscores the need for a vexatious litigant order, because it confirms that traditional costs orders are insufficient to regulate Mr. Abi-Mansour’s behaviour.”
Counsel for the union did not respond to a request for comment.
Abi-Mansour could not be reached for comment.
