Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff, William Kuntang Ma, was declared a vexatious litigant, restricting his ability to initiate or participate in court proceedings without leave.

• The key dispute centered on whether Mr. Ma needed court approval to file not only new actions but also applications or responses in ongoing cases.

• Defendants argued for a broad interpretation of "legal proceedings," encompassing all filings regardless of stage.

• Mr. Ma sought clarification and exceptions, especially when represented by counsel or when responding to defense filings.

• The court rejected Mr. Ma’s narrower interpretation and confirmed the need for leave to file most substantive materials.

• Costs were awarded to the defendants, reinforcing the court's disapproval of Mr. Ma’s procedural tactics.

Facts and outcome of the case

The dispute arises from ongoing and contentious litigation between William Kuntang Ma and three defendants—Guo Qiang Dai, Chang Ying Xu, and Hui Han—largely centering on real property interests and procedural misconduct. Mr. Ma had previously been declared a vexatious litigant in a 2024 decision, which meant he was barred from commencing further legal actions without prior leave of the court.

In this subsequent proceeding, the parties returned to court for clarification and settlement of the terms of that vexatious litigant order. The core issue was whether the restriction applied solely to the filing of new lawsuits or if it extended more broadly to include responses, applications, and other filings in existing actions. The court also addressed two other applications—one concerning contempt and another regarding solicitor-client privilege—but chose to defer them for later hearings.

The defendants, represented by counsel J. Zeljkovich, argued that Mr. Ma’s litigation conduct had been persistently abusive, with repeated filings that mirrored earlier complaints and introduced allegations of misconduct and conspiracy. They urged the court to interpret “proceedings” expansively, encompassing all types of filings in any stage of litigation, citing statutory and judicial definitions.

Mr. Ma, now represented by new counsel S. Bourns, countered that the original order did not clearly apply to filings within existing matters, and that requiring leave for such submissions—especially when he was represented by legal counsel—would unfairly limit his ability to participate in defending his interests. He also asserted that one of the filings occurred due to a lawyer's error, not in deliberate defiance of the order.

Justice Whately sided largely with the defendants. While acknowledging the complexity and ambiguity in the previous ruling, the court clarified that its intent had always been to require Mr. Ma to obtain leave before making any substantive filings—whether initiating a new proceeding or participating in an ongoing one. The court dismissed Mr. Ma’s civil claim and a prior application filed in July 2024, affirming that he must seek leave before any further substantive court activity.

As part of the ruling, the court ordered that Mr. Ma shall not file new actions, applications, responses, or appeals without prior judicial approval. However, the court allowed limited procedural exceptions (e.g., indicating no opposition or consent). Importantly, this did not limit the powers of any case management judge that may oversee related actions.

Finally, the court awarded costs of the application to the defendants at Scale B, though no specific amount was stated. No damages were awarded. This outcome solidified the supervisory approach the court adopted to limit further misuse of judicial resources by the plaintiff.