Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
Has VEXATIOUS LITIGATION of 20 years ENDED against Housing Provider & Directors ? TIAGO v Tinimint 2021/04/04 17:49  
Not legal advice, as usual.

2020-21 already served up some bizarre shockers ( including one longtime Toronto vexatious litigant's subsequent YEARS of massive ANONYMOUS cyber-defamation against dozens of non-involved targets who had never even heard of her. The ( tort-classifying ) remedy being attempted against her, even hit the New York Times ). Not to be outdone . .

A veteran ONSC Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge has just laid a vexatious litigant designation onto a pair of former R.G.I. rent-geared-to–income plaintiffs ( under s 140 of the Courts of Justice Act RSO 1990 c C.43 ) .

The litigants had waged as much as TWENTY ( 20 ) YEARS of proliferative civil filings & mischief against a HOUSING PROVIDER, some of its Directors personally, lawyers and court officers. Even against what is now The Law Society of Ontario.

Ignoring the build-up of what now totals $ 220 K in court-ordered costs awarded against them, as S.R.L. self-represented litigants since 2008 they have waged a rearguard action following what appears to have been a $ 10 K ( ? imputed ? ) income re-calculation dispute & order to repay while still in occupancy.

Such culminated in a physical eviction Order almost 20 years ago. ( The Order issued by the O.R.H.Tribunal predecessor to Ontario’s current L&T Board, appears from one past decision to have been actioned long ago, and the judge expresses bewilderment at whatever their end-game since then ).

In context, after downloading from the Province 2 decades ago, RGI calculations attempted by housing providers might - MIGHT - have been encountering some complex issues.

Such as whether to impute as household income non-routine family law support or divorce settlements or injury compensation or whatevers. Or exactly "who is part of the household ? " . . . Not certain here, and the O.R.H. Tribunal would have addressed such objections.

But initially justified or not, one has to question the havoc chosen over decades on the ( now-designated vexatious ) litigants themselves as well as on their wide range of targets including Directors personally.

Usually these things sorta peter out . . . Or do they ?

Xcrpt : " [1] . . . . have burdened this court with dozens of spurious claims, motions and appeals — all stemming from a 2002 tribunal decision evicting them from non-profit housing because they misrepresented their income.

The plaintiffs’ abuse of the judicial system ends today.

. . . . [63] The plaintiffs have also failed to pay any of the 35 cost awards ordered to date, now totalling almost $220,000.

. . . [67] . . . I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for an order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibiting the plaintiffs, either directly or indirectly, from instituting or continuing any proceedings in any court in Ontario, except with leave of a judge of this court.

[68] The s. 140 application is granted." - unquote

Tiago v. Tinimint Housing et al, 2021 ONSC 2232 issued March 30/21
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
additional legal costs bring total unpaid to $ 305 K : TIAGO v Tinimint et al 2021/04/21 18:57  
Not legal advice.

ONSC cost award adds another combined $ 85 K ( partial indemnity ) award against the vexers but they skipped costs submissions.

Unpaid total apparently now increases to $305 K ! Will any ever be seen ? Sucked up lotsa time & resources from a non-profit = from the taxpayers and from residents of what arguably is last resort housing intended for those in legitimate need . . .

Tiago v. Tinimint Housing et al, 2021 ONSC 2897 issued April 20/21
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster