Having been found a vexatious litigant in contempt of Court, the Appellant appealed the entirety of two Decisions rendered by Goss J. In the first Decision, Her Ladyship determined that no further Action could be taken against Defendants who were not served in time, pursuant to Rule 3.28; struck some Actions which had no reasonable prospect of success on the basis of Rule 3.68; and also summarily dismissed some Actions pursuant to Rule 7.3.

In the second Decision under Appeal, Goss J. had dismissed four Actions pursuant to Rule 3.15, as the Originating Application for Judicial Review was neither served nor filed in time; found that other Actions could not move forward as parties were not served in time as required by Rule 3.28; struck some Actions which disclosed no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of Rule 3.68; and summarily dismissed other claims which lacked merit pursuant to Rule 7.3. Goss J. went on to declare the Appellant a vexatious litigant, referring to various situations of vexation or abuse of process as outlined in Rules 3.68(2)(c) and (d).

In affirming all of Goss J.’s findings, the Court of Appeal noted that Her Ladyship had correctly reviewed the law with respect to Applications to strike pursuant to Rule 3.68, and Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 7.3, both with reference to Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 87.

The Court of Appeal also affirmed Goss J.’s Decisions on Rule 3.15, finding that the Appellant’s Application for Judicial Review had not been filed or served in time. The Appeals were dismissed.