Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court considered whether a suspended lawyer, Mr. Jhanji, could represent 7602678 Manitoba Ltd. without violating The Legal Profession Act, CCSM c L107.

• The statement of claim was held to fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

• Mootness applied as 760’s claim had been struck and its appeal deemed abandoned for failure to retain legal counsel.

• Repeated efforts to challenge prior rulings were found to constitute an abuse of process aimed at re-litigating matters already decided.

• The motion for rehearing was denied because it did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify rehearing an appeal.

• Costs were awarded to the Law Society of Manitoba as the appeals and motions were found to waste judicial resources.

Facts of the case

The case involves a failed transaction in which 7602678 Manitoba Ltd. (760) sought to purchase a gas station from 6399500 Manitoba Ltd. (639), with Landmhel Real Estate Services Inc. (Landmhel) as the listing agent. Vibhu Raj Jhanji (Mr. Jhanji), a suspended lawyer, was described in the statement of claim as 760’s agent. He later became the sole director, officer, and shareholder of 760 as of April 2024.

Mr. Jhanji and 760 initiated proceedings in respect of this failed purchase. The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim on the basis it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and 639 also moved to strike Mr. Jhanji as plaintiff and bar him from representing 760. The Law Society of Manitoba (LSM) obtained intervener status to address the issue of Mr. Jhanji’s ability to represent 760, given his suspension from practising law.

The associate judge struck Mr. Jhanji’s personal claim and barred him from representing 760, finding this would contravene The Legal Profession Act. A motion to stay that decision was denied. The plaintiffs’ appeal of the representation order was not perfected in time, and their motion for an extension was refused by a motion judge. Meanwhile, the associate judge granted the defendants’ motions to strike the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. That decision was upheld by McKelvey J on appeal, who also denied leave to amend due to the “incomprehensible and prolix” nature of the claim.

760 did not retain counsel to pursue any further appeals, leading to the appeal of the striking order being deemed abandoned. Attempts by Mr. Jhanji to appeal further or act on 760’s behalf were rejected because 760 lacked legal representation.

Outcome of both decisions

In 2025 MBCA 24, the Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the main and interlocutory appeals. The court found that the issues were moot because 760’s claim had been struck, the appeal of that order was deemed abandoned, and there was no ongoing controversy regarding representation or the personal claim. It also found that proceeding further would be an abuse of process as the matters had already been determined. The court noted that Mr. Jhanji’s personal claim was inseparably tied to 760’s claim and no separate cause of action was pleaded. Costs were awarded to the LSM.

In 2025 MBCA 60, the Court dismissed Mr. Jhanji’s motion for a rehearing of the dismissed appeals. The Court rejected his argument that a new panel was required, finding no merit in that submission as section 22 of The Court of Appeal Act did not apply to rehearings. It further held that no exceptional circumstances justified a rehearing, as the motion repeated prior arguments, raised unrelated or new issues not previously advanced, and did not identify any patent error or overlooked evidence that would lead to a miscarriage of justice. Costs were again awarded to the LSM.

Discussion of policy terms

There was no discussion of insurance policy terms or contractual clauses in these decisions. The relevant legal provision was The Legal Profession Act, CCSM c L107, which prohibited Mr. Jhanji, as a suspended lawyer, from representing 760 in the proceedings.

Successful party

• The Law Society of Manitoba (LSM) was the successful party, as its position was consistently upheld in both decisions.

• The defendants 6399500 Manitoba Ltd. and Landmhel Real Estate Services Inc. were also successful in having the statement of claim struck and appeals dismissed.

The exact monetary amount of tariff costs is not specified in the decisions provided.