She accrued over $161,000 in unpaid costs after years of litigation following disciplinary action
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has declared a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner a vexatious litigant, prohibiting her from starting or continuing legal proceedings without judicial approval due to a pattern of repetitive and baseless litigation.
The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario sought the court's order after the respondent initiated years of litigation following disciplinary action against her in 2018. A disciplinary hearing found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct, resulting in a fine, a suspension of her license, and an order to pay costs. The Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed subsequent appeals and awarded additional costs.
After exhausting legitimate appeals, the respondent launched over 20 legal actions against the college, its staff, council members, investigators, and legal counsel. Many actions were dismissed, consolidated, or struck, resulting in further cost awards. The court also noted that the respondent filed meritless complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal and the Law Society, which dismissed them. The respondent accrued over $161,000 in unpaid costs related to these proceedings. The court concluded that this litigation demonstrated a persistent pattern of re-litigating settled matters and pursuing baseless claims.
Separately, one of the respondent's former clients sought a declaration that she was a vexatious litigant after a defamation lawsuit arising from a negative Google review of her practice. The respondent's handling of the case involved procedural errors, improper amendments to add a defendant without court approval, and unwarranted communications that the court found harassing and intended to intimidate the client and their legal counsel.
The court noted that s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act (CJA) empowers judges to declare someone a vexatious litigant if they persistently bring meritless proceedings or conduct litigation vexatiously. The court reviewed the respondent's extensive history of repetitive and frivolous legal actions, noting her failure to pay costs and her use of litigation for improper purposes, such as harassment or retribution. The court concluded that the respondent's conduct met the criteria for vexatious proceedings, including pursuing matters with no chance of success, recycling unresolved issues into new actions, and neglecting to pay court-ordered costs.
The Superior Court issued an order barring the respondent from initiating or continuing legal proceedings without prior approval from a Superior Court judge. However, the court granted exceptions for her ongoing leave application before the Supreme Court of Canada and allowed an appeal under s. 140(2.3) of the CJA.
