Ontario Superior Court: Denies Yan v Cornacchia Vexatious Litigant Leave

• The Ontario Superior Court denied a vexatious litigant's request for leave to appeal a decision that struck her claims in a personal injury case.
• The court found the proposed appeal to be an abuse of process and lacking reasonable grounds, as required by s. 140(4)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.
• The applicant, declared a vexatious litigant in January 2025, attempted to advance new claims after her underlying personal injury action settled and was discontinued, without first obtaining judicial leave.
• The court rejected the applicant's arguments of procedural unfairness and failure to consider evidence, noting her participation in previous motions and the irrelevance of her challenged documents post-discontinuance.
• The ruling reinforces the high burden on vexatious litigants to prove their proposed proceedings are legitimate and not an abuse of the legal system.

The court, in the case of Yan v. Cornacchia and Aviva, 2026 ONSC 5360, determined that the proposed appeal constituted an abuse of process and lacked any reasonable grounds for proceeding.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently rejected an attempt by a declared vexatious litigant to pursue an appeal stemming from a discontinued personal injury action. The court, in the case of Yan v. Cornacchia and Aviva, 2026 ONSC 5360, determined that the proposed appeal constituted an abuse of process and lacked any reasonable grounds for proceeding. This decision underscores the stringent requirements placed on individuals designated as vexatious litigants who seek to initiate or continue legal proceedings in Ontario.

The applicant had sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to challenge a December 2025 ruling. That earlier decision had struck down her third-party claim and denied her request to amend her statement of defence to introduce a counterclaim. The underlying dispute originated from a motor vehicle accident in which the applicant rear-ended another vehicle, leading to a personal injury action initiated by the other driver in 2020. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada provided insurance coverage for the applicant in this matter. The litigation progressed through discovery and ultimately settled at mediation in June 2025, with Aviva making no payment on the applicant's behalf, and a notice of discontinuance was subsequently filed.

Crucially, the applicant had been formally declared a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court in January 2025, prior to her attempts to advance new claims. This order imposed a prohibition on her from instituting any new proceedings or continuing existing ones without first obtaining specific leave from a Superior Court judge. Despite this, the applicant proceeded to bring motions to amend her pleadings and serve a draft third-party claim seeking damages for pain and suffering, aggravated damages, and punitive damages, all without securing the necessary judicial permission.

The legal standard for granting leave to a vexatious litigant is clearly defined under s. 140(4)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act. For an Ontario vexatious litigant appeal or any other proceeding to advance, the court must be satisfied on two critical fronts: that the proceeding is not an abuse of process and that it is supported by reasonable grounds. The burden of proof for both these requirements rests squarely on the moving party, in this instance, the applicant herself. This high bar ensures that individuals with a history of vexatious litigation cannot easily re-engage the court system without demonstrating genuine merit and proper intent.

The court meticulously examined the applicant's request for Yan v Cornacchia vexatious litigant leave and found that she failed to satisfy either of the statutory requirements. Regarding the abuse of process criterion, the court noted the applicant's failure to provide sworn evidence indicating she was unaware of the vexatious litigant order when it was issued. This omission was significant in the court's determination that the proposed appeal was indeed an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the court systematically rejected all grounds the applicant put forth as justification for her appeal. She alleged procedural unfairness, a failure to consider material evidence, summary dismissal of properly pleaded claims, and an error in awarding costs. The court found that she had received all motion materials, submitted written arguments, and made oral submissions, thus refuting claims of procedural unfairness. It also clarified that the documents she challenged were irrelevant to the ability to advance claims after the underlying action had been discontinued. The court emphasized that the earlier motion concerned the viability of a counterclaim and third-party claim post-discontinuance, rather than their substantive merits, meaning the 'plain and obvious' test under Rule 25.11 was not engaged. Ultimately, the application was denied, and the applicant was ordered to pay Aviva Insurance Company of Canada costs fixed at $2,500.

This ruling serves as a strong affirmation of the strict judicial approach to vexatious litigants seeking leave to continue or initiate proceedings in Ontario, particularly under s. 140(4)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act. The decision in Yan v. Cornacchia and Aviva 2026 ONSC 5360 highlights the moving party's significant burden to demonstrate that their proposed action is neither an abuse of process nor lacking reasonable grounds. The court's detailed analysis of the applicant's arguments provides a clear precedent for how such applications are to be assessed.

For legal practitioners, this case offers valuable insight into the rigorous standards applied when opposing an abuse of process personal injury appeal or any other proceeding initiated by a declared vexatious litigant. The emphasis on the absence of sworn evidence regarding awareness of the vexatious litigant order, alongside the thorough dismissal of the alleged grounds for appeal, reinforces the judiciary's commitment to preventing the misuse of court resources. The outcome, including the cost order against the applicant, further underscores the consequences of failing to meet these stringent requirements.

This ruling reinforces the high bar for vexatious litigants seeking leave to continue or initiate proceedings in Ontario, particularly under s. 140(4)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act. Lawyers should note the court's emphasis on the moving party's burden to prove the proceeding is not an abuse of process and has reasonable grounds, providing a useful precedent when opposing such applications.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer