BAINS v ADAM

The Applicants, Dr. Jagdev Singh Bains, his wife, and their three children applied for permission to Appeal an Order restricting Court access and, if granted, a Stay pending Appeal. The Application proceeded in writing under Rule 14.51.

Since 2017, the Applicants have pursued multiple interrelated lawsuits arising from motor vehicle incidents, many of which the Court found duplicative or abusive. In 2021, a separate Action against opposing counsel and insurers was struck pursuant to Rule 3.68 as an abusive proceeding. The Chambers Judge further found that similar claims were advanced through family members as “litigation proxies”. In these circumstances, global Court access restrictions were imposed. 

Rule 14.5(1)(j) requires a person declared a vexatious litigant to obtain leave before appealing, including to challenge the vexatious litigant Order itself. Applying the Rule 14.5 leave framework, the Court held the test was not met.

On the first branch, the Applicants did not raise an important question of law or precedent within the meaning of Rule 14.5. The Applicants argued that the Court access restriction violated their Charter rights. However, the Court stated that there is no constitutional right to pursue frivolous or vexatious litigation, and the Order preserved access by allowing legitimate actions to commence by following a prescribed procedure. On the second branch, the Applicants did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success. The Chambers Judge had given detailed reasons for imposing restrictions based on a sustained pattern of abusive litigation, and the Applicants did not meaningfully identify reversible error. On the third branch, Shaner J.A. found that granting leave to appeal would risk undue prejudice and delay by prolonging the Applicants’ pattern of abusive litigation.

The Application for permission to Appeal was dismissed.