Appeal asked for $1 million in damages, costs; appeal ruled frivolous, vexatious, abuse of process
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed a retired pilot’s appeal of an order expelling him from a pilots association for being frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process under the province’s Rules of Civil Procedure.
In Ledsham v. Air Canada Pilots Association, 2022 ONCA 550, the Air Canada Pilots Association – the respondent in this case – received complaints about the conduct of the appellant, who headed the association and represented pilots that Air Canada employed. The association initiated arbitration of the matter, in line with established practice.
The arbitrator found that the appellant breached the association’s constitution and ordered his expulsion from its membership. The association sought the enforcement of the expulsion order, which had not been made immediately effective, on the basis that the appellant allegedly committed further misconduct. The arbitrator granted the association’s request.
The association filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking to enforce the arbitrator’s awards. The judge found that the matter did not involve any of the limited circumstances in which a court may refuse to enforce an arbitration award and granted the application. The appellant wanted to appeal the judge’s decision to the Ontario Divisional Court.
The Divisional Court sent the appellant a notice under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure., R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and asked for submissions regarding certain concerns. The appellant failed to address these concerns and instead demanded a meeting with the judge. The Divisional Court then held that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which was on its face frivolous and vexatious.
Before the Ontario Court of Appeal, the appellant asked for an order setting aside the arbitration awards and charging certain individuals with fraud, perjury, or failing to appear. He sought $1 million in damages and costs that he spent on all actions. He argued that his charter rights were unjustifiably infringed and that the previous decisions in this matter were illegal and based on perjury.
The appellate court found the appeal to be, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process under r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules.
The appellant failed to meaningfully respond to the registrar’s notice that the court was considering dismissing the appeal under r. 2.1 and to the request for submissions, despite repeated reminders to do so, the appellate court said. The appellant was asking for relief that the Court of Appeal could not grant.
The appellant confirmed that his email to the member of provincial parliament, which copied the court, served as his response to the registrar, the appellate court noted. The appellant also said that he did not plan to offer any more submissions.
