Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Statement of claim was struck without leave to amend as frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

• Appeals attempted to re-litigate issues already determined in prior decisions, notably the 2022 suspension ruling.

• Charter claim under section 7 was asserted but not explained in a legally coherent or substantiated manner.

• Allegations of bias and judicial misconduct were vague and unsupported.

• Rehearing motion misinterpreted section 22 of The Court of Appeal Act and lacked legal foundation.

• Costs were awarded to the respondents, with doubled costs granted to the LSM for the rehearing motion.

Background facts

Vibhu Raj Jhanji appealed a decision from the Court of King’s Bench which struck his statement of claim without leave to amend on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. In his claim, Mr. Jhanji sought to challenge the authority of the Law Society of Manitoba (LSM) under The Legal Profession Act, CCSM c L107, to suspend him. He also alleged wrongdoing by members of the judiciary who had previously ruled on matters involving him, including his interim and three-year suspensions. His arguments included claims under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the basis for these claims was not presented in any comprehensible or particularized manner.

Appeal decisions

In Jhanji v Law Society of Manitoba, 2025 MBCA 11, the Manitoba Court of Appeal heard two related appeals:

1. The first appeal was against the Court of King’s Bench judge’s decision to strike out the statement of claim.

2. The second appeal arose from a procedural motion in which Mr. Jhanji sought the disclosure of documents, recusal of counsel and the judge, the setting aside of previous judgments of the Court, and an order for the Court to exercise the powers of the LSM.

Both appeals were dismissed. The Court found that the statement of claim failed to raise any intelligible legal basis for challenging the LSM’s actions or the legislation under which it acted. The appeal was characterized as another attempt to re-litigate the decision in Jhanji v Law Society of Manitoba, 2022 MBCA 78, which had upheld the suspension and was final. The second appeal was considered moot given the dismissal of the main appeal, and no arguable grounds were raised in support of it. The Court awarded costs to the respondents, with factum fees allowed for each appeal and a single fee for appearance.

Policy and statutory discussion

Mr. Jhanji’s claims centered on the application of The Legal Profession Act and section 7 of the Charter, but the Court found that he failed to show how the statute engaged any Charter protections in a legally sound way. His allegations against the judiciary involved vague and unsubstantiated claims of bias and illegality, which did not meet any threshold for judicial review or Charter scrutiny.

Rehearing motion and final outcome

In Jhanji v Law Society of Manitoba, 2025 MBCA 45, Mr. Jhanji filed a motion under rule 46.2 of the Court of Appeal Rules (Civil) seeking a rehearing of the appeal dismissed on January 28, 2025. He argued that section 22 of The Court of Appeal Act, which prevents a judge from sitting on an appeal of their own judgment, barred the same panel from hearing his rehearing request. The Court rejected this interpretation, clarifying that a rehearing is a continuation of an existing appeal and is properly heard by the original panel unless it is unavailable due to illness or retirement.

The Court reaffirmed that a rehearing will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as a clear legal error or a serious risk of miscarriage of justice. None of the criteria were met in this case. The panel unanimously denied the request, finding no merit in the legal arguments raised. Costs were again awarded in favour of the respondents, with doubled costs granted to the LSM due to the baselessness of the motion. The Attorney General of Canada did not request elevated costs and was not awarded them.

In sum, Mr. Jhanji’s claims and motions were repeatedly rejected as legally unfounded, procedurally inappropriate, and devoid of merit.

No monetary award was granted and the specific amount for costs was not stated.