Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants moved under Rule 2.2 for a vexatious litigant order due to the plaintiffs’ history of repetitive and duplicative litigation.

• Multiple prior proceedings involved the same underlying allegations and were allegedly res judicata or time-barred.

• Plaintiffs filed additional unsolicited responses not permitted under Rule 2.2, raising procedural compliance concerns.

• Court staff errors delayed the required judicial review, allowing the motion to languish for several months.

• Justice Leach ordered a written hearing under Rule 2.2.07 and imposed a stay on all proceedings and motions pending its outcome.

• The decision advanced the defendants' motion procedurally but left the ultimate determination on vexatious status unresolved.

Facts and outcome

Larena and Isaiah Smith brought legal proceedings against the London Health Sciences Centre, Cathy Vandersluis, and Dr. Sandra Fisman. In response, the defendants sought a vexatious litigant order under section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act. They invoked Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a recently introduced provision designed to streamline and regulate the process for identifying and managing vexatious litigation.

The defendants submitted a Form 2.2A notice of motion in December 2024, accompanied by supporting documents detailing the plaintiffs' litigation history. The material showed that the plaintiffs had initiated multiple legal proceedings and complaints involving the same underlying facts and the same defendants, dating back to at least 2014. Some of these earlier cases had already been dismissed as duplicative or frivolous, including one decision by Justice Grace which explicitly found the claims to be an abuse of process.

In accordance with Rule 2.2, the plaintiffs filed a Form 2.2D response. However, they later submitted additional materials beyond what the rule permits. These procedural missteps were compounded by administrative delays, as the court failed to conduct the mandatory initial judicial review under Rule 2.2.06 once the time for responses had passed. Instead, the motion sat idle for several months until a case conference was scheduled in July 2025.

Justice I.F. Leach presided over the case conference, during which he explained that such a conference was not an authorized step under Rule 2.2 prior to the initial judicial review. He took the opportunity to conduct the overdue review himself. Upon examining the materials, Justice Leach found sufficient indicators of potentially vexatious conduct to justify a full hearing under Rule 2.2.07. Although the rule did not require reasons for this decision, the judge noted several key concerns, including repeated relitigation, limitation period issues, and the existence of prior judicial findings of abuse.

Justice Leach ordered that the hearing proceed in writing rather than in open court. He reasoned that a written format would allow for more efficient management of the matter given court scheduling constraints, the volume of documents, and the fact that the plaintiffs were self-represented. The judge imposed a timetable for the exchange of written submissions, including factums and compendia. He also ordered the plaintiffs to disclose any ongoing legal proceedings they were involved in, as this information might be relevant to the upcoming hearing.

To preserve judicial resources and avoid further disruption, Justice Leach stayed the main action and barred either party from bringing new motions until the vexatious litigant issue was resolved. He emphasized that he was not seized of the matter and that any available judge could conclude the written hearing once the necessary materials had been filed.

There is no final winner yet. The court has not ruled on the merits of the vexatious litigant motion. However, the defendants won an interim procedural victory — Justice Leach ordered that a formal hearing on the vexatious litigant motion proceed in writing and imposed a stay on all further proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs until that motion is resolved. This favors the defendants procedurally. Although the court has not yet determined whether the plaintiffs are vexatious litigants, the procedural decisions to date have significantly advanced the defendants’ position. The written hearing is now set to proceed under a supervised timetable, with the plaintiffs’ ability to litigate further temporarily restricted. The outcome of the motion remains pending.