Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff initiated multiple actions following the denial of accident benefits stemming from a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

• The Licence Appeal Tribunal and Divisional Court had already upheld the denial of benefits before the new claims were filed.

• Gore Mutual moved to dismiss the actions under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and abusive.

• Each claim either lacked a legal basis, attempted to re-litigate resolved issues, or failed to establish a discernible cause of action.

• The court found all four actions to be meritless and dismissed them accordingly.

• A vexatious litigant declaration was not granted due to procedural requirements for a separate motion under section 140.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

The plaintiff, Aynoush Biniaz-Sarabi, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 24, 2017. Initially, she received accident benefits from Gore Mutual Insurance. However, these benefits were later terminated. She contested the termination before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), which conducted a five-day hearing and ultimately upheld the insurer’s denial. The plaintiff then appealed to the Divisional Court, which dismissed her appeal on September 25, 2023.

Following these decisions, the plaintiff launched multiple legal proceedings against a broad array of parties, including Gore Mutual Insurance, The Personal Insurance Company, health care providers, and law firms. Gore Mutual responded by bringing a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal of these actions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process.

Legal framework

Under Rule 2.1.01, a court may dismiss a proceeding at any time if it appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court’s process. This rule is designed to prevent the misuse of judicial resources and to protect parties from being subjected to groundless litigation. Additionally, section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act allows a person to be declared a vexatious litigant, but only through a separate and properly brought motion.

Court’s analysis of each case

In CV-24-00000619 (Newmarket), the plaintiff sought $50 million in damages, alleging that Gore Mutual and others failed to provide proper medical care and engaged in improper insurance practices. The court concluded the claim had no legal foundation and should not proceed.

In CV-22-00000315 (Oshawa), the plaintiff had named Gore Mutual and its lawyer as defendants. After initiating the action, she moved to dismiss it herself. Despite this, the court evaluated the filing as part of a broader pattern of litigation abuse and concluded it also constituted an abuse of process.

In CV-22-00001632 (Oshawa), the court noted that the claims were essentially an attempt to re-argue the denial of accident benefits that had already been fully litigated before the LAT and Divisional Court. The action was dismissed on the basis that it improperly sought to re-litigate settled matters.

In CV-24-00001243 (Oshawa), the plaintiff brought claims against various law firms and a doctor. The court found that these claims lacked a clear legal basis or cause of action and dismissed them accordingly.

Final decision and result

The court dismissed all four actions brought by the plaintiff. It agreed with Gore Mutual that the filings were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01. However, it declined to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting that such a declaration requires a separate motion. No damages, costs, or other monetary awards were granted to the plaintiff in any of the dismissed cases.