



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Stephens v. Stephens, 2019 ONCA
    752

DATE: 20190925

DOCKET: C66810

Doherty, Harvison Young and
    Thorburn JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Kimberley
    Marie Stephens

Respondent

and

William Russell Stephens

Appellant

Kimberley Marie Stephens,
    self-represented

William Russell Stephens,
    self-represented

Heard: September 20, 2019

On
    appeal from the judgment of Justice Arrell of the Superior Court of Justice,
    dated December 9, 2011.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

No one appears for the respondent. The motion
    judge properly dismissed the myriad of orders requested by the appellant. There
    is no appeal from that part of the disposition.

[2]

The motion judge also commented, in strong
    terms, on the appellants long-term misuse of the process. He declared the
    appellant a vexatious litigant. He did so without any application under s. 140
    of the
Courts of Justice Act
,
and without giving the appellant any opportunity to address the proposed order.

[3]

In light of the significant procedural
    shortcomings, and absent a proper application, the order cannot stand, despite
    the potential merit of the order.

[4]

The appeal must be allowed, the order
    prohibiting the appellant from bringing any application involving the
    respondent, her counsel or children in any family-related matter without leave
    of the court, must be set aside.

[5]

The appellant advises that he no longer has any
    desire to engage in this family law-related litigation. He says he has not
    tried to bring any motions in 10 years, and only wants to get on with his life.
    Hopefully, this is true.

[6]

We emphasize that our decision turns on the
    absence of procedural fairness. We do not suggest that the motion judges
    characterization of the appellants litigation conduct was inappropriate. The
    appeal is allowed and the vexatious litigant order is set aside.


