Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Hancock was declared a vexatious litigant and required leave to proceed with any further appeals under section 31.2(3) of The Court of Appeal Act.

• The court denied her motion for leave to proceed, finding no merit in allegations of bias, jurisdictional error, or ineffective assistance of counsel.

• Claims related to the validity of the 2014 settlement agreement were found unsubstantiated and already determined.

• The WRHA had obtained summary judgment in its favour, and Ms. Hancock’s counterclaim was dismissed.

• Repeated attempts to raise previously decided or irrelevant issues were deemed an abuse of process.

• The court held that Ms. Hancock’s conduct continued to reflect vexatious litigation behaviour and stayed the appeals.

Facts and procedural background

In September 2016, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) commenced legal action against Shannon Hancock for breaching the terms of a 2014 settlement agreement between the parties. Ms. Hancock filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim. In 2023, the WRHA moved for summary judgment on both its claim and Ms. Hancock’s counterclaim.

Before the summary judgment hearing, Ms. Hancock filed a motion seeking to strike affidavit evidence submitted by the WRHA and to disqualify its counsel, the law firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP (TDS). The WRHA responded with a motion to strike her affidavit. These motions were dismissed by the motion judge on May 6, 2024 (referred to as the “motions decision”).

On May 7, 2024, Ms. Hancock filed a motion for leave to appeal that decision. Then, on August 27, 2024, the WRHA’s motion for summary judgment was granted and her counterclaim dismissed (Winnipeg Regional Health Authority v Hancock, 2024 MBKB 126). The following day, Ms. Hancock filed a notice of appeal of that ruling (the “first notice of appeal”).

Subsequently, on October 22, 2024, the parties appeared before the Chief Justice of Manitoba for a rule 37.1 meeting under the Court of Appeal Rules for directions concerning the conduct of the appeals. The Chief Justice found that Ms. Hancock’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional arguments were improperly brought, and dismissed her request to disqualify TDS. Ms. Hancock filed another notice of appeal on December 30, 2024, contesting that chambers decision (the “second notice of appeal”).

However, on February 12, 2025, in a related matter, the Manitoba Court of Appeal declared Ms. Hancock a vexatious litigant (College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba v Hancock, 2025 MBCA 14). This designation required her to obtain leave before pursuing any further proceedings in that court.

Grounds raised and court findings

Ms. Hancock’s April 23, 2025 motion for leave to proceed encompassed her previously filed appeals. Across her filings, she alleged:

• ineffective assistance of counsel

• jurisdictional errors

• conflict and bias of WRHA’s counsel

• systemic and judicial bias

• procedural unfairness

• delay

• prejudice to her Charter rights under section 7

• and that the registry had accepted evidence supporting her appeals

The WRHA opposed the motion, arguing that her appeal grounds lacked specificity, reiterated settled issues, and included new arguments not previously pled or properly before the court. It also noted inconsistencies between her written submissions and the issues outlined in her notices of appeal.

The court determined that while Ms. Hancock had complied with the condition of paying outstanding costs (as required under the vexatious litigant order), the grounds she raised lacked any arguable merit. It rejected her claims regarding jurisdiction, procedural unfairness, and the validity of the settlement agreement. The court noted that the settlement had been entered into while the parties were engaged in arbitration, and there was no evidence to suggest it was invalid.

Outcome and rationale

Justice Lemaistre dismissed the motion for leave to proceed, finding that Ms. Hancock continued to exhibit the same vexatious conduct that led to the original order. The court noted her persistent attempts to reargue matters already determined and to raise irrelevant issues, including focusing her arguments on the vexatious litigant designation itself rather than the appeals at hand.

The decision emphasized that courts must protect their processes from being misused by repeated, meritless litigation. As a result, the court dismissed the motion with costs and stayed the appeals of both the summary judgment decision and the chambers decision under section 31.3 of The Court of Appeal Act. The only proceeding that may continue is Ms. Hancock’s appeal of the vexatious litigant order itself.

Monetary award: Costs awarded to WRHA (amount not specified); no damages or total award amount stated in the uploaded decision.