Did the motion judge err in declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant?
[141] My colleagues conclude that the vexatious litigant declaration cannot stand, but for different reasons. With respect to their reasons, I agree that the motion transcript demonstrates that a vexatious litigant declaration was not an issue placed or argued before the motion judge. [142] In addition, in my view, even if the respondent had used the correct procedure, his materials were inadequate to give the appellant notice that he was seeking a vexatious litigant declaration. While the respondent sought both security for costs and an order that the appellant seek leave “prior to filing”, under “laws and rules on which you are relying”, the respondent cited only rule 24. That rule deals with costs generally and security for costs. This reference is consistent with the respondent’s affidavit where he said both that he was seeking “security for costs prior to further litigation” and that he “brought motion for special motion date for security for costs”. Rule 24(13)(4) of the family r
