Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Abuse of process was central, with the court finding the claim and subsequent motions to be frivolous and vexatious.

• The pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action or were duplicative of prior litigation already decided.

• The appellant’s attempt to reopen the case relied on allegations of judicial error and bias, which the court found to be without merit.

• Rule 2.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure was applied to summarily dismiss the motion as an abuse of the court’s process.

• The appellant’s reliance on Rule 59.06(2) for relief based on alleged fraud or new facts was rejected due to lack of substantiation.

• No costs were awarded despite the dismissal, reflecting the court’s discretion in vexatious litigation contexts.

Facts of the case

In April 2018, Service Ontario mistakenly transferred the registered ownership of Tanya Rebello’s vehicle to an auto parts company. Although this administrative error was subsequently corrected, it triggered a series of legal actions initiated by Ms. Rebello against the province of Ontario, represented by the Attorney General, the Premier, and the Ministry of the Attorney General. The litigation spanned several years and courts, including the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Procedural history and prior decisions

Ms. Rebello’s initial claim was struck by Justice Centa of the Superior Court of Justice on November 1, 2024. The court found the action to be an abuse of process, noting that the pleadings either failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action or repeated issues already decided in earlier proceedings. The claim was dismissed without leave to amend. Ms. Rebello appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which dismissed her appeal on March 13, 2025. Her subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied on September 18, 2025.

The motion under Rule 59.06 and the court’s analysis

Following these setbacks, Ms. Rebello brought a motion under Rule 59.06 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to have the Court of Appeal’s March 13, 2025, decision and costs order reviewed. She argued that the panel’s reasons contained “false” statements and alleged bias on the part of one of the judges. The Registrar referred the motion to a different panel due to these allegations.

Rule 59.06(2) allows a party to seek to set aside or vary an order on grounds such as fraud or new facts arising after the decision. However, the court found that Ms. Rebello’s submissions failed to provide any credible basis for these claims. The panel concluded that the motion was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, particularly as it sought to relitigate matters already conclusively determined, including by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Policy considerations and application of procedural rules

The court emphasized the importance of gatekeeping to prevent abusive litigation from burdening the justice system, citing Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission. Rule 2.1.01 was invoked, which empowers the court to summarily dismiss motions that are frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process.

Outcome and final orders

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Rebello’s motion under Rule 2.1.01, finding no merit in her arguments and no justification for reopening the case. No order as to costs was made, reflecting the court’s approach to vexatious litigation. The successful parties in this matter were the respondents—the Attorney General of Ontario and related officials. No monetary award was ordered in favor of the successful parties, as the focus was on dismissal and procedural closure rather than damages or costs.