Latest news with #vexatiouslitigant
CBC
17 hours ago
- Politics
- CBC
Suspended lawyer banned from filing appeals in Manitoba after 'multitude of meritless' motions: decision
A lawyer previously suspended from practising after being deemed incompetent has now been barred from starting or continuing proceedings in Manitoba's appeals court without permission from a judge, after being deemed a "vexatious litigant." That decision follows a history of Vibhu Raj Jhanji bringing what the Court of Appeal of Manitoba called "a multitude of meritless appeals and motions," including challenges of a decision to suspend him from practising law, a related human rights complaint and a separate lawsuit about a failed real estate transaction. A vexatious litigant is, by definition, someone who repeatedly files unfounded legal actions for improper purposes. "Mr. Jhanji asserts that he is not vexatious, as he has simply taken proceedings and sought remedies that are available to him at law and under the court rules," the June 19 decision from three appeals court judges said. "His position is that the [Law Society of Manitoba] is 'flouting the law' and has had its decisions 'rubber stamped' by the courts." Meanwhile, the appeals court found Jhanji's actions met "most, if not all," elements needed for the legal test it used to determine whether proceedings should be deemed vexatious. That includes starting multiple proceedings to relitigate matters that have already been decided, referring back in written materials to identical or nearly identical grievances from prior hearings and appeals — including allegations of bias against appeals judges — and trying to have lawyers for the law society and other responding parties disqualified, the decision said. It's also "objectively clear that the proceedings will not result in the relief sought," the decision said, adding Jhanji has tried to have unsuccessful appeals heard again and appealed unsuccessful chambers motions. Jhanji, who practised law in India for over two decades, was found incompetent to practise in Manitoba in January 2020, after a Law Society of Manitoba review found significant gaps in his knowledge of Canadian law. That decision also raised concerns about how he was ever allowed to practise in Manitoba in the first place, given his level of incompetence. He was later given a suspension of no less than three years, with the suspension extending indefinitely until he could establish his competency to practise. As of Friday, his status with the Law Society of Manitoba was still listed as suspended. 'Frivolous' lawsuit, human rights complaint Among the frivolous legal actions detailed in the appeals court's June decision was one Jhanji filed against defendants including the Law Society of Manitoba after the court dismissed challenges of his suspension. That claim was later struck, with a judge describing it as an abuse of court process and a "frivolous and vexatious" attempt to relitigate a suspension that was already upheld several times, the decision said. Jhanji then filed an appeal, along with a motion that tried in part to have the law society's lawyers disqualified. The motion was dismissed — a decision he also appealed. Both those appeals were dismissed, as was a motion for a new hearing, and the court moved to declare Jhanji a vexatious litigant, the decision said. Around the same time, Jhanji also filed a complaint against the law society with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, "alleging systemic bias and that it discriminated against him because of his nationality" during his disciplinary hearings. The commission declined to investigate, saying it lacked jurisdiction and the matter had already been determined by the courts. The commission also concluded the complaint was "frivolous and vexatious," the appeal court decision said. Jhanji then sought a judicial review of the commission's decision, which was dismissed — prompting him to file another appeal. 'A now familiar pattern' In November 2020, Jhanji also filed a separate statement of claim naming himself and a numbered company he's the sole director of as plaintiffs in connection with a failed real estate transaction, the decision said. Jhanji ended up being struck as a plaintiff in that case and barred from representing the numbered company. He appealed and moved for a stay of proceedings, which was dismissed. In the meantime, the deadline for filing an appeal brief also passed, resulting in the appeal being deemed abandoned, the decision said. Jhanji then filed a motion before another judge to extend the time he had to file the brief. It was dismissed, and he appealed. He also brought a motion seeking measures including disqualification of law society counsel and a notice of contempt being issued against them. That motion was also dismissed, then appealed, the decision said. Jhanji's real estate claim ended up being struck — a decision appealed and dismissed by "yet another" judge — then appealed again, the Court of Appeal decision said. In July 2024, Manitoba's chief justice denied a motion to give Jhanji permission to represent the numbered company on its three related appeals. Other appeals related to that matter were also dismissed — and in "a now familiar pattern, Mr. Jhanji filed a motion for a rehearing of these appeals," which was also recently dismissed, the appeal court decision said.
Malay Mail
09-05-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
High Court rules ‘vexatious litigant' son can't file new lawsuits against ex-MCA sec-gen father and 10 firms without court leave
KUALA LUMPUR, May 9 — The High Court has declared Datuk Seri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow a 'vexatious litigant' due to his multiple lawsuits against his father, Tan Sri Kam Woon Wah, and the latter's 10 companies. The court also barred Tai Yeow from initiating any new legal proceedings in Malaysia against his father — a former MCA secretary-general — and the 10 firms unless he first obtains leave from a High Court judge. High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain issued the orders on Tuesday and directed that the declaration be gazetted. She also ordered Tai Yeow to pay RM20,000 in costs to his father and the 10 companies. The father, aged 96 this year, and his 63-year-old son have been embroiled in legal disputes since 2017. In June 2024, Woon Wah and the companies filed a High Court suit to have Tai Yeow declared a vexatious litigant. The 10 companies include Raub Mining & Development Company Sdn Bhd (RMDC), Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd, and eight corporate shareholders of RMDC, such as Berjaya Realty Sdn Bhd and United Raub Oil Palms Sdn Bhd. In her 24-page written judgment dated May 6, Justice Roz Mawar highlighted a 'protracted legal drama' between father and son that has flooded Malaysian courts since 2017. The family feud reportedly began after Woon Wah publicly disowned and disinherited Tai Yeow via a newspaper announcement on March 7, 2017. Court proceedings initiated by Tai Yeow include a 2017 lawsuit claiming ownership of RMDC shares based on an alleged January 2017 shareholders' agreement with his father. While the Court of Appeal in 2022 ruled the suit should proceed to trial, it found no basis for action against the corporate shareholders. Despite ongoing trials, Tai Yeow filed a fresh suit in February 2024 based on the same alleged agreement. The High Court struck out this case, and he has since filed an appeal. Other cases initiated by Tai Yeow include nine failed applications for leave to start contempt proceedings and a December 2021 bid to assess his father's mental capacity. The latter was struck out in February 2023, with the court deeming it baseless, oppressive, and an abuse of process. In its ruling, the High Court found that Tai Yeow's repeated litigation and collateral proceedings placed significant burdens on his father, the companies, and the judiciary. Justice Roz Mawar emphasised that constitutional rights to liberty and equality must operate within legal bounds and respect final judicial decisions. 'Courts are empowered to act when access to justice is transformed into a tool for harassment and oppression,' she said. The court concluded that Tai Yeow had misused the judicial system for personal grievances rather than resolving genuine legal issues. It noted that his persistent pursuit of settled matters crossed the line into harassment and abuse of process.
