The Court considered whether to impose Court access restrictions on the Respondents, who cross-applied requesting that the Court impose access restrictions on the Applicants.

The Court determined that the Respondents were vexatious litigants and imposed Court access restrictions on them. The Court noted that determining whether to impose Court access restrictions involves consideration of the litigation record of an abusive litigant to evaluate whether that person has engaged in litigation misconduct. The Court reviewed decisions criticizing the Respondents’ litigation conduct, including a decision holding that one of the Respondents had advanced bald, unsubstantiated allegations of defamation contrary to Rule 13.7(f).

The Court dismissed the Respondents’ Cross-Application to impose Court access restrictions on one of the Applicants. The Court found that the Applicant had a pattern of making offensive, ill-considered statements and conducting litigation in an inefficient or aggressive manner. However, the Court noted that this conduct was not a consistent or predominant pattern as the Applicant was an important actor in taking steps to identify and mitigate a large-scale fraud. The Court determined that the Applicant’s litigation was manageable by steps less extreme than Court access restrictions such as Security for Costs or case management.

The Court determined that the Applicants were presumptively entitled to Costs pursuant to Rule 10.29(1) as they were entirely successful. The Court required the Applicants to prepare an Order and dispensed with the requirement for the Respondents to approve that Order in accordance with Rule 9.4(2)(c).