The Applicant sought permission to appeal two Orders of Associate Chief Justice Rooke (as he then was) related to the Applicant’s status as a vexatious litigant. Rule 14.5(1)(j) establishes that a litigant who has been declared vexatious cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal without permission from the Appeal Court.

To grant a vexatious litigant permission to Appeal, the Court of Appeal must find that: (a) there is an important question of law or precedent, (b) there is a reasonable chance of success on Appeal, and (c) the delay will not unduly hinder the progress of the Action or cause undue injustice. The Applicant faces a very high burden in establishing a serious issue of general importance with a reasonable chance of success on Appeal. Further, a declaration that a Party is a vexatious litigant is discretionary in nature and, as such, its Appeal is subject to a deferential standard of appellate review.

Appeal Justice Ho dismissed the Applicant’s Rule 14.5 Application. The Applicant failed to establish an important question of law or precedent, or that he had a reasonable chance of success on Appeal. Although the Applicant cited general principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, Rooke A.C.J.’s application of these principles to the circumstances of the case, and his findings of fact, would have been afforded deference by the Court of Appeal.