Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff failed to comply with a December 15, 2023 court order requiring payment of $5,086.08 in costs to the defendants, resulting in a stay and potential dismissal of her action.

• Multiple court decisions found the plaintiff’s conduct to be vexatious, abusive, and an abuse of process, including her submissions and communications with the court and its officers.

• The plaintiff’s motions and submissions were repeatedly found to be frivolous, incoherent, irrelevant, and excessively lengthy, often including conspiracy theories and attacks on court officials.

• The action was exempted from mandatory mediation due to the plaintiff’s unwillingness to mediate in good faith and her abusive conduct toward the court-appointed mediator.

• Costs were awarded against the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis in several instances, including $5,086.08 and $13,679.68, due to her egregious litigation conduct.

• The plaintiff was barred from bringing further motions without leave of the court, and her claim was subject to dismissal unless she paid a total of $19,221.41 in costs within thirty days.

Background and procedural history

Amanda Dunning commenced this action by statement of claim issued on June 19, 2018, against Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc. and Daniel Holmes. She alleged breach of contract and theft of intellectual property, claiming that Holmes interviewed her for a job, requested a business plan, offered her a position, failed to follow through, and subsequently used her business plan for Colliers’ benefit. The defendants denied all allegations, including any offer of employment, use of her business plan, or conspiracy with her former employer, Intercity Realty Inc.

In 2020, Ms. Dunning brought a motion to compel the defendants to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents. Associate Justice McGraw heard the motion and, by endorsement dated November 18, 2020, made various orders regarding document production and set a timetable for further steps, including mediation. Costs of the motion were deferred to the trial judge as costs in the cause.

On September 9, 2021, Ms. Dunning served a notice of motion for leave to amend her fresh as amended statement of claim. The motion, heard by Associate Justice D. Michael Brown on March 1, 2022, was dismissed. The proposed amendments were found to be verbose, rambling, replete with evidence and argument, and included irrelevant conspiracy theories and allegations against non-parties. The associate judge found the amendments to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Ms. Dunning attempted to appeal the order dismissing her motion to amend. Justice Robert Centa reviewed her submissions and found them to be rambling, incoherent, unfocused, vituperative, and unresponsive. The appeal was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.02, and Ms. Dunning was barred from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave of the court. Justice Centa’s order was dated January 3, 2023.

Mediation and costs orders

In August 2021, Ms. Dunning requested a court-appointed mediator. Carol Takahashi was appointed, but withdrew after receiving abusive and inflammatory communications from Ms. Dunning, including attacks on Takahashi’s ethnicity and qualifications. Takahashi declared the matter unsuitable for mediation and referred it back to the court’s Mandatory Mediation office, recommending a consent order to dispense with mediation.

The defendants moved for an exemption from mandatory mediation. Associate Justice Brown heard the motion on August 15, 2023, and granted the exemption, finding that Ms. Dunning had no intention of mediating in good faith and that compelling mediation would only delay resolution and increase costs. The defendants were awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $5,086.08, by order dated December 15, 2023.

Failure to comply with costs orders and further proceedings

Despite three written demands, Ms. Dunning failed to pay the $5,086.08 ordered by Associate Justice Brown. The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action for non-payment. Associate Justice R. Frank heard the motion on May 14, 2025, and issued reasons on June 16, 2025, staying the action and giving Ms. Dunning a final chance to pay the costs, plus postjudgment interest of $455.65 (totaling $5,541.73), and any further costs ordered for the motion. The stay would only be lifted upon full payment; otherwise, the claim would be dismissed without further notice or motion.

The court considered the plaintiff’s conduct, including her repeated submission of irrelevant, abusive, and excessively lengthy materials, and her attacks on counsel, court staff, and judicial officers. The court found no evidence of impecuniosity and noted that Ms. Dunning had traveled to London, England, during the proceedings. The court concluded that her refusal to pay was deliberate and that her conduct warranted firm action.

Costs for the motion to dismiss or stay

The defendants sought costs of $13,679.68 on a substantial indemnity basis for the motion to dismiss or stay, or $9,278.11 on a partial indemnity basis. Ms. Dunning’s responding submissions were over 18 pages long (despite a 3-page limit), largely irrelevant, and repeated conspiracy theories. The court found no basis for her request that costs be paid by the defendants’ lawyer personally. Associate Justice R. Frank fixed costs at $13,679.68 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the defendants’ fees and disbursements reasonable.

Disposition

By costs endorsement dated July 9, 2025, the court ordered that the stay of proceedings would only be removed upon Ms. Dunning paying the defendants in full: (a) $5,541.73 in costs owing under the December 15, 2023 order (including interest), and (b) $13,679.68 for the costs of the motion, for a total of $19,221.41. If Ms. Dunning failed to pay the total costs within thirty days, her claim would be dismissed without further notice or motion, and the defendants could apply for an order dismissing the action upon filing an affidavit certifying non-payment.

Outcome

The court dismissed Amanda Dunning’s claim against Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc. and Daniel Holmes due to her failure to pay court-ordered costs totaling $19,221.41, her abusive and vexatious litigation conduct, and her unwillingness to participate in good faith in court-ordered processes. The defendants were entirely successful, with costs awarded in their favor as specified. If Dunning did not pay the required amount within the specified period, her claim would be dismissed without further notice, and the defendants could seek a formal dismissal order upon proof of non-payment.