Vexatious litigant

How BC law treats it

Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, c 443 lets any person apply to the BC Supreme Court for a vexatious litigant order. The court must be satisfied that the person has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds started vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, against the same or different people. The person must have a chance to be heard. If the order is made, the person cannot start a legal proceeding in any court without leave of the court. Courts look for patterns: relitigating issues already decided, suing lawyers, judges or officials involved in earlier cases, rolling unpaid costs awards, and claims seeking relief no court can give. The order does not bar access to the courts entirely. It adds a screening step so a judge reviews new claims first. The court also has inherent jurisdiction to control abuse of its process, and the Court of Appeal has its own power to restrict vexatious appeals. A single meritless claim is handled differently. Under Rule 9-5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009, the court can strike all or part of a pleading that discloses no reasonable claim, is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or is otherwise an abuse of process. The court can also award special costs against a party whose litigation conduct is reprehensible.

What it means for your business

A former customer, tenant or business partner who files claim after claim can drain management time and legal budget even when every claim fails. A vexatious litigant order stops the cycle by requiring court permission for new proceedings. Building the record matters: keep copies of each filing, decision and unpaid costs award, because the application depends on showing a pattern. For a one off weak claim, a strike application under Rule 9-5 is usually the faster tool. Example: A former franchisee loses a claim against a Surrey franchisor, then files four new claims on the same facts against the franchisor, its directors and its lawyers. The franchisor applies under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act, and the court orders that the former franchisee needs leave before starting any further proceeding.

Risks and common mistakes

Applying for a vexatious litigant order after one weak claim, when s. 18 requires a habitual and persistent pattern. Failing to collect the full history of filings, decisions and costs awards needed to prove the pattern. Confusing a vexatious litigant order with striking a single pleading under Rule 9-5. Ignoring a new claim from a vexatious litigant on the assumption it is automatically invalid, instead of checking whether leave was obtained.