Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court considered whether Nathan Dempsey's application to have a vexatious litigant motion heard publicly amounted to a collateral attack on an existing sealing order.
   
• Section 45B of the Judicature Act and the court's inherent jurisdiction were both examined as sources of authority to restrain a vexatious litigant.
   
• Justice Campbell reviewed years of litigation across British Columbia and Nova Scotia, including multiple contempt findings and unpaid costs awards exceeding $400,000.
   
• Established tests from Tupper v. Nova Scotia and Turmel v. Canada were applied to assess the hallmarks of vexatious conduct.
   
• Dempsey argued that Jonsson v. Lymer precluded a vexatious litigant finding against him, a position the court rejected.
   
• Evidentiary issues included whether Dempsey's application was properly filed as a separate proceeding rather than within the existing sealed motion.
   

Facts of the case

Nathan Kirk Dempsey and Pagefreezer Software Inc., along with Michael Riedijk, have been engaged in prolonged litigation spanning British Columbia and Nova Scotia since August 2021. Pagefreezer and Riedijk brought a motion under Hfx 529459 seeking to have Dempsey declared a vexatious litigant. That file is subject to a permanent sealing order issued by Justice John Keith in a prior decision. After the vexatious litigant motion was filed, Dempsey started a separate proceeding, under a new file number, Hfx 549788, asking that the vexatious litigant motion be heard publicly rather than under seal. Both matters were scheduled for hearing on the same day by Justice Gatchalian, a scheduling decision Dempsey unsuccessfully appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Justice Campbell heard both matters together on July 23, 2026. The decision traces an extensive history of related proceedings, including four actions in the British Columbia courts, multiple contempt findings against Dempsey in both provinces, a 30-day custodial sentence and a 45-day house arrest sentence for contempt, and costs awards from British Columbia totalling more than $400,000, none of which have been paid.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Two legal sources were central to the analysis. Section 45B of the Judicature Act, 1989 R.S.N.S. c. 240, permits the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to restrain a person from starting or continuing proceedings without leave where that person has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds started or conducted a vexatious proceeding. Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rule 88.02(2) governs how a vexatious litigant motion may be brought, including within an existing proceeding, which was relevant to whether Dempsey's separate filing was procedurally proper. Additionally, the test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, governing when court openness may be restricted, underpinned the sealing order Dempsey sought to circumvent.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Campbell first addressed whether Dempsey's application constituted an abuse of process. Dempsey maintained he was not attacking Justice Keith's sealing order directly, only seeking to have the vexatious litigant motion heard openly under a new file. The court rejected this characterization, finding it met the definition of a collateral attack: an attempt to achieve, through a procedural workaround in a different forum, a result that could only properly be pursued by appealing the original order. Applying the rule against collateral attacks, which protects the integrity of the justice system by preventing duplicative proceedings, the court found Dempsey's application improper. Turning to the vexatious litigant motion, the court applied the framework from Tupper v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2015 NSCA 92, and the hallmarks identified in Turmel v. Canada, 2023 FCA 140, including manifestly meritless claims, disregard of costs orders, multiple unnecessary proceedings, and disdain for court process. The court reviewed Dempsey's history in detail, including a prior vexatious litigant finding against him by Justice Majawa in British Columbia, repeated contempt findings, failure to post security for costs leading to abandoned appeals, and refusal to accept the finality of adverse rulings. Dempsey's reliance on Jonsson v. Lymer, 2020 ABCA 167, was considered and distinguished; that case cautioned against using a vexatious litigant order as a substitute remedy for contempt or against a party acting defensively, but Justice Campbell found Dempsey was the one who had initiated and continued proceedings, not merely defended against them. The court also referenced commentary from Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, 2013 NSCA 59, on the distinction between persistent litigants pursuing legitimate grievances and those who abuse the court process.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Campbell dismissed Dempsey's application as an abuse of process and ordered that the Hfx 549788 file, including materials Dempsey filed on the motion, be permanently sealed in accordance with the existing sealing order. On the central motion, the court found Nathan Dempsey to be a vexatious litigant and indicated it would sign the order in the form provided by counsel for Pagefreezer and Riedijk, the successful parties. No monetary award was made in this decision; the court directed that costs submissions be filed separately in writing, with Pagefreezer and Riedijk's submissions due 30 days from the decision and Dempsey's reply due 60 days, meaning the monetary outcome on costs remains unresolved as of this ruling.