Background
Shannon Hancock (formerly Shannon Loechner) was previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in February 2025 in connection with proceedings involving both the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA). On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the vexatious litigant order as against the College but set it aside as against the WRHA, finding that Hancock had not received adequate notice that the original hearing would address her ability to pursue proceedings against both bodies (2026 MBCA 15).
Following that partial reversal, the Court provided proper notice to Hancock that a fresh panel would consider whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant in connection with her three existing appeals against the WRHA (File Nos. AI24-30-10070, AI24-30-10112, and AI24-30-10155) and any future proceedings against it. Before the merits were heard, Hancock raised a preliminary objection seeking recusal of the entire panel on the ground of a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that each member had previously decided matters against her.
The Court rejected the recusal motion, finding no cogent evidence to displace the strong presumption of judicial impartiality. The fact that panel members had previously ruled against Hancock in other appeals did not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court then proceeded to consider the vexatious litigant application on its merits, reviewing a record of more than 2,000 pages.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal (Mainella JA, writing for the panel) declared Hancock a vexatious litigant in the Court of Appeal and prohibited her from continuing her three existing appeals against the WRHA, or from instituting any new proceedings against the WRHA, without first obtaining leave of a judge of the Court. The Court found overwhelming evidence of attempted abuse and significant misuse of the court process that, if left unchecked, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Court catalogued seven categories of egregious conduct underlying the order: serial uncivility toward opposing counsel, registry staff, and judges; complete disregard for court procedures and filing orders; repeated irrelevant communications about matters such as the authenticity of registry communications; scandalous and conspiratorial allegations against members of the bar and judiciary with no connection to the litigation; open contempt for the registrar’s authority; aggressive communications frivolously alleging professional misconduct; and repetition of arguments already decided against her.
The order requires any future application for leave to proceed to be made in writing to the registrar in a letter of no more than three pages, with the registry authorized to reject filings made in contravention of the order or non-compliant with applicable rules. No costs were awarded, as the order arose on the Court’s own motion. The new order operates in addition to the existing vexatious litigant order upheld in 2026 MBCA 15 relating to the College.
Key Takeaways
- A prior adverse ruling against a litigant does not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias sufficient to require recusal of the same judges in subsequent proceedings.
- Courts may declare a litigant vexatious and restrict court access where the record demonstrates a pattern of abusive conduct — including uncivility, procedural defiance, baseless misconduct allegations, and repetitive arguments — that threatens the integrity of the administration of justice.
- A vexatious litigant order may require all future applications for leave to proceed to be made in a short written submission, with no oral hearing, streamlining judicial management of the restricted litigant’s access.
- Where a previous vexatious litigant order was set aside on procedural notice grounds, a court may cure the defect by providing proper notice and reconsidering the matter before a new panel.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how appellate courts in Manitoba apply the vexatious litigant framework under section 31.1 of The Court of Appeal Act to protect both opposing parties and the court system itself. The detailed enumeration of conduct categories — from registry harassment to conspiratorial allegations against uninvolved judges — provides a practical benchmark for what crosses the line from aggressive litigation to vexatious abuse of process.
The case also has procedural significance: it confirms that a vexatious litigant order set aside for inadequate notice can be re-made on proper notice, and it demonstrates a workable mechanism for managing restricted litigants through a capped written-submissions process, reducing the burden on courts and opposing parties while preserving a meaningful, if constrained, avenue for the litigant to seek leave.