Skip to content

I am Terribly Vexed – Vexatious Litigants in Penney v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 46

Joe Thorne and Kara Harrington

Vexatious litigants are a category of persons who misuse the court process through repeated improper, abusive, and/or meritless proceedings. Vexatious litigants may take many forms, but ultimately they are a drain on the resources of courts and defendants.

Unlike other provinces such as Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador does not have legislation for managing vexatious litigants. Nor has Newfoundland and Labrador established any procedure for a litigant who has been ordered to obtain leave of court prior to initiating proceedings to obtain such leave.

On March 9, 2020, Justice Handrigan of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador heard an application for leave to initiate a claim. The plaintiff bringing the application, Shawn Penney, had previously been ordered by the Court to obtain leave prior to initiating any new claim.

Mr. Penney, like many vexatious litigants in Canada and the United States, was described by the defendants as an “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigant”, or OPCA. OPCAs are, in general, a category of litigants that refuse to acknowledge established law. Rather, OPCAs rely on what has been described as “pseudolaw” – a form of argument that on its face appears to have some basis in law, but in reality is disconnected from existing law.

OPCAs have been described as:

…largely contained in communities that are in conflict with or hostile to government and corporate authority. These groups typically hold profoundly conspiratorial beliefs concerning the nature and illegitimacy of “conventional” authorities, and are clearly attracted to the idea of another “true” hidden law that can be accessed to escape from or retaliate against those who are perceived as enemies or wrongdoers.¹

In his March 13, 2020 decision on the application, Justice Handrigan reiterated the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to manage its own process, including the inherent authority to require a litigant to obtain leave to start new proceedings and to set the process for obtaining such leave.

Background

In February 2019, Justice Faour of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ordered that Mr. Penney was not permitted to commence or continue any further proceedings in the Supreme Court without first obtaining leave of a Justice of the Court. By the time of Justice Faour’s order, Mr. Penney had commenced 6 proceedings using OPCA language seeking various forms of relief against the government, all of which had been dismissed.

In April 2019, Mr. Penney disobeyed Justice Faour’s order by filing a new Statement of Claim without obtaining leave. Mr. Penney’s claim was against the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada for “negligence and vicarious liability” and asked for, among other things, $50,000,000.00 in general damages, $10,000,000.00 in punitive damages, and:

a declaration that the defendants are in breach of its/their international obligations and duties and that, the defendants lack of supervision permitted discrimination, bullying and harassment and thus abrogate, abridge or infringed upon Human Rights of plaintiff during its (crown) interaction with plaintiff in his (plaintiff) civil, political, economical, social and cultural institutional rights and freedoms custom to rule of law.²

Based on Mr. Penney’s failure to seek the required leave of Court, the Court, on its own motion, stayed the proceedings without prejudice to Mr. Penney’s ability to seek leave in the future.

In May 2019, Mr. Penney filed an ex parte application seeking leave of the Court to proceed. In August 2019, upon the Court’s instruction, Mr. Penney served the application for leave to proceed on both defendants.

The Decision

Guided by Ontario’s legislation and case law from that province, Justice Handrigan denied Mr. Penney’s application.

Justice Handrigan reached this conclusion by analyzing Mr. Penney’s application through the lens of Section 140 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act.³ That section addresses vexatious proceedings and sets out the factors Ontario courts consider to determine whether to grant leave in such proceedings. Those factors include, that “leave shall be granted only if the court is satisfied that the proceeding sought to be instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and there are reasonable grounds for proceeding.”⁴

The test for whether to grant leave pursuant to s. 140 was explained by Justice Favreau in Olumide v. Thompson Reuters, 2019 ONSC 997:

The test is not merely whether the applicant has conceptually an arguable case. The applicant must proffer evidence and not mere allegations to support the proposition that there is an evidentiary basis for the relief claimed in the proposed proceeding.

Justice Handrigan noted that Newfoundland and Labrador does not have similar legislation, but that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to dispose of matters that come before it (unless the Court is specifically forbidden from considering such a matter). This inherent jurisdiction includes the jurisdiction to require vexatious litigants to obtain leave of court to start or continue proceedings, and to hear those applications for leave.

Noting Justice Favreau’s finding that the history of a vexatious litigant is relevant to determining whether to grant leave, Justice Handrigan explained that Mr. Penney had a history of similar actions, including many related proceedings Mr. Penney had commenced over the past two and a half years.

Regarding the proceeding at issue, Justice Handrigan explained that the claim, “lacks logic, it is rambling and incoherent and it does not state any cause of action known to law.”⁶

Applying the test from Olumide, Justice Handrigan found that it was conceptually impossible to determine if Mr. Penney had an arguable case. Further, he noted that even a cursory reading of Mr. Penney’s statement of claim revealed that it was scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

Accordingly, Justice Handrigan denied Mr. Penney’s application for leave. Justice Handrigan also ordered Mr. Penney to pay $1,000.00 in costs to each defendant, and provided a seven-part set of procedural steps that Mr. Penney is required to follow in order to start or continue any proceeding in the Court in the future:

  1. Any application to commence or continue a proceeding shall be in writing.
  2. Any application to commence or continue a proceeding shall be accompanied by an affidavit:
    1. attaching a copy of the pleading, motion or process that Shawn Cordale Penney proposes to issue, file or continue;
    2. deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;
    3. indicating whether Mr. Penney has ever sued any or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or court, and, if so, providing full particulars;
    4. undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and
    5. undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.
  3. The designated judge may, but shall not be obliged to:
    1. give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to:
      1. the potential parties;
      2. other relevant persons identified by the Court; and
      3. the Attorney-General of Newfoundland and Labrador and/or the Attorney-General of Canada.
    2. respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and
    3. hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.
  4. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs.
  5. An application for leave that is dismissed may not be made again directly, or indirectly.
  6. The staff of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador at the Registries in all court centres throughout the Province, and for greater certainty, at the Registries in St. John’s, Grand Bank, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, shall be advised of these conditions and shall discard any documents or other materials from Mr. Penney, unless they comply with the directions set out above.
  7. Any fee waivers granted to Mr. Penney formerly are hereby revoked. Any future fee waiver requests will be considered with any motion for leave that Mr. Penney brings to commence or continue a proceeding.

Impact

Justice Handrigan’s decision confirms the Court’s inherent authority in the absence of clear statutory authority to deal with vexatious litigants. This decision strikes a balance between access to justice and misuse of judicial resources.

The decision confirms that the Court may institute appropriate barriers to such proceedings so that they do not unfairly take up the Court’s, or the defendant’s, time and resources. Justice Handrigan’s seven-part procedure will likely provide guidance on the steps required in future cases.


¹ Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony, D. Netolitzky, Alberta Law Review (2018), vol 55, no 4, at p 1048.
² Penney v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 46 at para 16.
³ RSO 1990, c C-43.
Penney v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 46 at para 5.
Penney v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 46 at para 7.
Penney v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 46 at para 24.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


Search
Generic filters

 
 

The Winds of Change (Part 4): A Review of Rental and Royalty Regimes for Wind Development on Crown Lands: Options for Newfoundland and Labrador’s Economic Wind Policy

August 3, 2022

By: John Samms, Sadira Jan, Paul Kiley, Dave Randell, Alanna Waberski, and Jayna Green As we explained in our July 6, 2022 “Winds of Change” article, the announcement made by Minister Andrew Parsons on April…

Read More

Update on the Economic Mobility Program for Refugees (phase 2): The Economic Mobility Pathways Project (“EMPP”)

August 2, 2022

Included in Beyond the Border – July 2022 By Brittany Trafford; Fredericton   Brief Overview In an attempt to address the Canadian labour market shortages, the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot (“EMPP”), was introduced in 2018.…

Read More

HR Best Practices When Employing Foreign Workers

July 29, 2022

Included in Beyond the Border – July 2022   By Brendan Sheridan; Halifax Canadian employers are increasingly relying on foreign workers to fill gaps in the labour market and to provide specialized skills. In 2020,…

Read More

Beneficial Ownership Registry Rules Come to New Brunswick

July 28, 2022

By Alanna Waberski, Graham Haynes and Maria Cummings On June 10, 2022, the Government of New Brunswick proclaimed into force Bill 95, which amends the Business Corporations Act (New Brunswick) (the “NBBCA”) to require corporations…

Read More

Recent trends in defined benefits pension plans – a review of public sector plans

July 28, 2022

Included in Discovery: Atlantic Education & the Law – Issue 10 Hannah Brison and Dante Manna Increased financial volatility caused by recent global events has caused public sector defined benefit (“DB”) pension plans to reflect…

Read More

Atlantic Canada offers immigration pathways for workers in Trucking, Health, Construction and Food Service Industries

July 27, 2022

Included in Beyond the Border – July 2022 By Sara Espinal Henao; Halifax It is a well-known fact that Atlantic Canada needs workers. In the aftermath of COVID-19, regional employers in the trucking, health, construction,…

Read More

The winds of change (part 3): Newfoundland and Labrador releases wind energy guidelines

July 27, 2022

By: John Samms, Matthew Craig, Dave Randell,  and Jayna Green On July 26, 2022 the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador (the “Province”) released “Guidelines: Nominating Crown Lands for Wind Energy Projects” (the “Guidelines”). Described as…

Read More

Trends in tenure and promotion for unionized employers

July 25, 2022

Included in Discovery: Atlantic Education & the Law – Issue 10 By Kate Profit    Tenure is a well known and often discussed topic amongst academics. Viewed by unions as a cornerstone of modern universities,…

Read More

Car-Sharing Comes to PEI – Insurance Implications

July 22, 2022

Dalton McGuinty Jr. and Kegan Bradley On May 17th, 2022, Canada’s largest car-sharing company, Turo, brought their platform to Prince Edward Island. The service allows car owners (lessors) to lend out their vehicles to drivers…

Read More

Federal Government announces significant investments in Nova Scotian clean energy initiatives

July 21, 2022

Nancy Rubin & Tiegan Scott On July 21, 2022, the Federal government announced a new investment of up to $255 million for clean energy initiatives in Nova Scotia. The funds will be allocated in two…

Read More

Search Archive


Search
Generic filters

Scroll To Top