Background
William Kuntang Ma sued Guo Qiang Dai, Chang Ying Xu, and Hui Han over an alleged scheme involving fraudulent divorce documents, interference with family property, theft, harassment, and conspiracy. The action was one of numerous proceedings that Ma or members of his family had brought since 2020 against the respondents and lawyers connected with them.
A Supreme Court of British Columbia judge found that Ma had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds. She struck his pleadings, dismissed the action as an abuse of process, and required him to obtain leave before filing proceedings or substantive materials in new or existing Supreme Court matters. Pro forma responses and purely procedural filings containing no substantive position were excluded. Ma appealed the vexatious-proceedings finding and argued that the judge lacked authority to require leave for materials filed in response to proceedings brought against him.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The litigation record provided ample support for the vexatious-proceedings finding, and Ma identified no error of law, error in principle, material misconception of the evidence, or other basis for interfering with the judge’s discretionary decision. The judge was also entitled to resolve the application without first permitting discoveries or cross-examinations that would prolong the repeated litigation of substantially the same allegations.
The Court declined to decide definitively whether s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act, standing alone, authorizes restrictions on responsive filings. It held that the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its processes permitted the judge to require leave for substantive responses, operating alongside her statutory authority. The restriction was justified because the record showed that Ma’s responses could be as vexatious as proceedings he initiated, and it remained open to him to defend himself by obtaining leave.
The Court also refused to admit Ma’s proposed fresh evidence, concluding that it would not have affected the result and largely sought to revisit allegations already pursued in multiple proceedings. Ma was ordered to pay the respondents’ appeal costs at Scale B.
Key Takeaways
- A superior court’s inherent jurisdiction can support filing restrictions on substantive responses as well as proceedings initiated by a vexatious litigant.
- Restrictions affecting responsive filings must be individualized, proportionate, supported by the record, and no broader than reasonably necessary.
- A leave requirement does not necessarily bar a litigant from defending a claim, particularly where the order preserves routes for seeking leave and exempts pro forma or purely procedural filings.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that British Columbia Supreme Court judges may craft vexatious-litigant orders addressing abusive conduct in both offensive and defensive filings. That authority derives from the court’s inherent power to control its own process, even though the Court of Appeal left unresolved the precise reach of s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act.
At the same time, the judgment emphasizes that broad filing restrictions require a clear evidentiary basis and careful tailoring. Courts must balance protection of litigants and judicial resources against access to justice and the affected person’s ability to defend proceedings.