TICAN v ALAMGIR

The Applicant, a vexatious litigant, sought permission to appeal two Orders, one seeking permission, and extending time, to appeal a 2017 Consent Order, and the other for a stay pending Appeal. The Court dismissed the Applications.

The Court confirmed that where a party is subject to a vexatious litigant Order, Rule 14.5 requires permission to appeal, and the Applicant must demonstrate an important question of law and a reasonable likelihood of success. The Applicant’s proposed grounds, including allegations of procedural unfairness and bias, did not meet this threshold.

The Court considered the applicable timelines under Rule 14.8 and rejected the Applicant’s argument that a subsequent vexatious litigant Order revived the right to appeal the earlier Consent Order. The incorporation or modification of earlier restrictions does not restart the appeal period.

With respect to the extension of time, the Court noted that Rule 14.37 requires evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the original time, a reasonable explanation for delay, lack of prejudice, and an arguable Appeal. The Court found that the Applicant, who filed approximately eight years late, failed to satisfy any of these criteria, and that granting the extension would be prejudicial.

The Court also addressed the use of procedural tools to manage vexatious litigation, noting that Security for Costs under Rule 4.22 forms part of the Court’s ordinary gatekeeping mechanisms and can be reasonably anticipated.

Accordingly, the Applications for permission to appeal, extension of time, and Stay were dismissed.