Michalyshyn J

9.4: Signing judgments and orders
14.5: Appeals only with permission

Case Summary

The Appellant appealed a Decision of Master Schlosser which held that the Appellant had no rights in relation to a property that he previously owned, as the property was now held by the Appellant’s bankruptcy trustee. At the Appeal of Master Schlosser’s Decision, the Appellant attempted to submit irregular and unorthodox documents, including a number of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments documents. The Appellant had also demanded that Michalyshyn J. produce His Lordship’s “oath of office” to establish His Lordship’s authority. Michalyshyn J. dismissed the Appeal, and further requested that the Appellant and the Respondent make submissions and enter evidence as to whether the Appellant should be subject to Court access restrictions, and if so, what form those restrictions should take.

Michalyshyn J. held that Court access restrictions were appropriate given the Appellant’s history of abusive litigation conduct. He declared that the Appellant was a vexatious litigant, and among other things, ordered that the Appellant would need leave to commence or continue an Appeal. If an Appeal Judge grants leave to commence an Appeal, then the Appellant may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). In preparing the Order, the Court also dispensed with Rule 9.4(2)(c), which otherwise would have required the Appellant’s approval of the Order.

View CanLII Details