Case information

Charter of rights and freedoms — Fundamental justice — Applicant suing respondents for alleged harassment and invasion of privacy — Applicant ordered to pay security for respondents’ costs, and ordered to pay costs of respondents’ motion for security for costs — Courts below dismissing appeals, and quashing further appeal attempts for want of jurisdiction — Whether legislation in Canada can block individual from seeking remedy for breach of Charter rights — Whether legislation in Canada can block individual from seeking access to justice, from seeking the right to be heard, and from having their case heard — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 and 15 — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 6, 17, 19 — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O., Reg. 194, r. 2.1.01, 56.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant commenced a claim against the respondents, arising from events that took place during her tenancy in a rental condominium unit in Toronto. A judge of the Superior Court declined to dismiss the claim as frivolous on its face, pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The respondents then brought a motion seeking security for costs, pursuant to r. 56.01(e), on the grounds that there was good reason to believe that the action was frivolous and vexatious, and that the applicant lacked sufficient resources to pay any eventual costs order.

A Master of the Superior Court ordered the applicant to pay an amount as security for the respondents’ costs, and barred her from taking further steps in the action until the security amount was posted; in a second decision, the applicant was also ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of their security for costs motion itself. A judge of the Superior Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals from both decisions, and awarded costs to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeal granted the respondents’ motion to quash the applicant’s Notice of Appeal from the single judge’s decision, quashed her appeal, and dismissed her cross-motion (seeking leave to appeal two other costs orders), with partial indemnity costs.

---

---