Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether Mr. Jhanji required leave to proceed at all, given that he had been declared a vexatious litigant in the Court of Appeal, framed the threshold question.

• A central issue was whether the proposed appeal was moot because the underlying action had been struck and no live controversy remained over who could represent the plaintiff.

• The frivolousness inquiry turned on whether Mr. Jhanji had identified any error in principle, legal error, or misapprehension of evidence in the Chief Justice's representation decision.

• Underlying the dispute was the settled rule that a corporation must be represented by counsel before a full panel except in exceptional circumstances.

• Whether an extension of time to appeal was warranted, given the roughly eighteen-month delay, formed a separate and independent obstacle.

• The deferential standard owed to a chambers judge's discretionary decision on corporate representation shaped how the alleged errors were assessed.

Facts of the case

The application arose from long-running litigation between 7602678 Manitoba Ltd. (the plaintiff) and Landmhel Real Estate Services Inc., among others, the background of which has been reviewed in numerous prior decisions. Vibhu Raj Jhanji ("Mr. Jhanji"), acting on the plaintiff corporation's behalf, sought leave to appeal an order made by Rivoalen CJM in chambers. On May 28, 2024, the Chief Justice heard the plaintiff's motion asking that Mr. Jhanji be permitted to file documents and appear on its behalf before a full panel of the Court of Appeal. On July 25, 2024, she pronounced an order denying the motion, ruling that Mr. Jhanji could not represent the plaintiff before a full panel and that, if the plaintiff did not retain counsel by September 3, 2024, the appeal would be deemed abandoned - which is what occurred. On August 6, 2024, Mr. Jhanji attempted to file a notice of appeal of that order, but the registry rejected it because the plaintiff had not retained a lawyer as the order required. It was not until February 17, 2026 - more than eighteen months later - that Mr. Jhanji filed the present application for leave to proceed. Leave was required because Mr. Jhanji had been declared a vexatious litigant in the Court (see Re Jhanji, 2025 MBCA 61), and because the application was filed well past the fifteen-day window for appealing a chambers order under the Court of Appeal Rules.

Statutory provisions and legal principles at issue

The application engaged section 31.2(1) of The Court of Appeal Act (the vexatious litigant leave requirement) and rules 42 and 46 of the Court of Appeal Rules (Civil) (the fifteen-day appeal period and extension of time). The substantive legal framework included the mootness doctrine from Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 342; the leave standard requiring a non-frivolous, arguable appeal with a reasonable chance of success (Green v University of Winnipeg, 2020 MBCA 49); the common law rule that a corporation must be represented by counsel before a full panel absent exceptional circumstances (7451190 Manitoba Ltd v CWB Maxium Financial Inc, 2019 MBCA 28); and the criteria for extending time to appeal from R v DBR, 2005 MBCA 21.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Turner JA denied the application on three independent grounds. First, the appeal was moot: as Spivak JA had explained in a related 2025 Court of Appeal decision, the plaintiff's statement of claim had been struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, so no action remained between the parties and there was no live controversy over Mr. Jhanji's ability to represent the plaintiff. The Chief Justice's order continued in force even while being appealed, and the plaintiff had retained no counsel to seek a stay, extend time, or file an appeal. Second, the proposed appeal was frivolous with no reasonable chance of success: applying the deferential standard owed to a discretionary chambers decision, the Court found that Mr. Jhanji had not articulated any error in principle, legal error, or misapprehension of material evidence. His materials largely expressed his view that it was unfair that no lawyer would take the plaintiff's case — he urged the Court to empanel lawyers required to act for corporations — and attempted to relitigate matters already decided. Third, even if leave were granted, no extension of time was warranted: Mr. Jhanji provided no explanation for the more than eighteen-month delay between the August 6, 2024 rejection of his notice of appeal and the February 17, 2026 application, and showed neither a continuous intention to appeal nor arguable grounds.

Ruling and outcome

The application for leave to proceed with an appeal of the order was denied. Because the respondent, Landmhel Real Estate Services Inc., did not participate in the application, no order as to costs was made.