Background
Dr. Andrew Watt, a physician acting in person, had previously been made subject to a vexatious litigant order by Justice Corbett of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Watt v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2024 ONSC 5980). That order required Watt to obtain written judicial permission before commencing or continuing any legal proceedings in the Superior Court, including the Divisional Court, after finding that his prior proceedings were not grounded in objective reality and were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
Watt sought permission from the Divisional Court to pursue two matters: an application for judicial review and a motion seeking an appointment with the Chief Justice of Ontario to discuss consolidating various claims before courts and tribunals. Justice O’Brien of the Divisional Court denied both requests, finding that Watt’s claims were nonsensical and lacked foundation in evidence or law.
Watt then sought leave to appeal Justice O’Brien’s order to the Court of Appeal. His leave motion included bare allegations of wrongdoing by judges involved in his prior proceedings, allegations of “gross negligence” in the administration of justice, and a request that the Chief Justice order the RCMP White Collar Crimes unit to investigate the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board and the College of Physicians and Surgeons for healthcare and regulatory fraud.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal, comprising Roberts, Monahan, and Wilson JJ.A., initiated a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after finding the leave motion frivolous and vexatious on its face. The court imposed a stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act pending that review and notified Watt it was considering dismissing his motion. Watt attempted to direct the Registrar not to proceed with the Rule 2.1 process until a case management judge was appointed, but the court declined to address that request while the stay remained in place.
Having reviewed the motion and underlying litigation, the court found it obvious that the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The court dismissed the leave motion pursuant to Rule 2.1.02, dismissed Watt’s request for case management, and issued an order under Rule 2.1.02(3) prohibiting Watt from bringing any further motions in this proceeding without leave of a justice of the Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A vexatious litigant order from the Superior Court does not prevent further abusive proceedings in appellate courts; courts at each level may independently invoke Rule 2.1 to dismiss frivolous proceedings summarily.
- Bare, unsupported allegations of criminal wrongdoing by judges and administrative tribunals, and requests for orders with no legal or evidentiary basis, satisfy the threshold for dismissal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02.
- A litigant subject to a Rule 2.1 review cannot deflect the process by directing court staff to pause proceedings or by conditioning compliance on unrelated case management requests.
- Courts may layer filing restrictions: having already been restrained at the Superior Court level, Watt now also requires leave of a Court of Appeal justice before bringing any further motions in this proceeding.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Ontario courts use the Rule 2.1 summary dismissal mechanism and vexatious litigant orders as coordinated tools to protect the administration of justice across court levels. Where a litigant repeatedly files proceedings disconnected from legal reality — including allegations of judicial misconduct without any factual grounding — courts need not engage with the merits and may act swiftly to curtail further abuse.
For health regulatory practitioners, the case is a reminder that repeated, failed challenges to decisions of bodies such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board can attract progressively severe procedural consequences, ultimately barring a litigant from accessing courts without prior judicial approval at multiple levels.