Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Multiple court actions filed by the petitioner were found to be repetitive, meritless, or improperly motivated.

• Judicial review was sought to challenge Labour Relations Board decisions on fair representation complaints.

• The principle of res judicata barred further proceedings that duplicated earlier dismissed claims.

• The petitioner’s misuse of court processes triggered a vexatious litigant application under section 18 of the Supreme Court Act.

• Proceedings targeting opposing counsel and unsupported accusations of fraud were key grounds for the vexatious finding.

• The court exercised discretion to restrict the petitioner from initiating further litigation without leave, with an exception for family law matters.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and factual history

Corrine Pereira, a former employee of Dexterra Group Inc., worked at a remote workforce camp known as Crossroads Lodge. Her employment was governed by a collective agreement, and she was represented by UNITE HERE Local 40. In 2020, Ms. Pereira was disciplined and later dismissed from her job. The union filed two grievances on her behalf: one for disciplinary actions prior to dismissal and another following her termination. Both grievances were ultimately settled by the union without her consent.

Believing the union had failed in its duty of fair representation, Ms. Pereira filed complaints under section 12 of the Labour Relations Code. These were dismissed by the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB), and subsequent applications for reconsideration were also denied. Ms. Pereira then filed multiple judicial review petitions to challenge the BCLRB’s decisions, which were heard and dismissed by Justice Punnett. Her appeals were unsuccessful, with the Supreme Court of Canada denying leave.

Despite these outcomes, Ms. Pereira continued to file numerous legal proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court of British Columbia. These included claims against her employer, the union, co-workers, and even opposing counsel. She also pursued a malicious prosecution claim and raised privacy concerns under PIPA (Personal Information Protection Act). In total, six of her proceedings were analyzed in this judgment for vexatiousness.

The court’s analysis

Justice Morley reviewed Ms. Pereira’s litigation history in detail, applying section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, which allows the court to declare a person a vexatious litigant if they have habitually and persistently filed baseless legal proceedings. The court emphasized that the test focuses on the nature of the proceedings—not on the personality of the litigant.

The judge categorized Ms. Pereira’s actions as falling into four types of vexatious conduct: relitigation of previously decided matters, meritless proceedings, actions brought with improper motive, and those targeting opposing counsel. Specific examples included re-filing claims previously struck as abuse of process, launching defamation lawsuits tied to earlier grievances, and filing suits against her former employer’s law firm. One malicious prosecution claim was based on a fabricated “news article” depicting a workplace shooting, which she emailed to over 200 recipients.

Despite having legitimate initial workplace grievances, Ms. Pereira’s refusal to accept adverse decisions, her repeated attempts to re-litigate issues, and her personal attacks against judges and lawyers demonstrated habitual misuse of the courts. The judge noted that her filings had consumed disproportionate resources in the Terrace court registry and impacted access to justice for others.

Outcome

The court declared Corrine Pereira a vexatious litigant under section 18 of the Supreme Court Act. She is now prohibited from initiating any further legal proceedings in any court—civil or administrative—without prior leave from a Supreme Court judge. The only exception granted was for family law proceedings. Any document filed in breach of this order is deemed a nullity, and leave applications must be filed under her legal name only.

No costs were awarded for or against the Attorney General or the Labour Board, but other respondents were granted leave to apply for costs. The court declined to use its inherent jurisdiction to stay existing proceedings but clarified that Ms. Pereira must seek leave to bring any new applications within ongoing actions.