Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under section 40 of the Federal Courts Act.

• Evidence included a long pattern of litigation misconduct across multiple courts and tribunals since 2010.

• The respondent had been the subject of over 66 court decisions, including 21 from the Federal Court of Appeal.

• Numerous prior court warnings against the respondent’s abusive and unfounded allegations were documented.

• The Court considered his ongoing disregard for rules, unpaid costs orders, and hostile conduct toward opposing counsel.

• A vexatious litigant order was ultimately granted, restricting future filings without leave of the Court.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

The Public Service Alliance of Canada applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for an order declaring Paul Abi-Mansour a vexatious litigant under section 40 of the Federal Courts Act. Mr. Abi-Mansour, a former federal government employee and union member, had a long history of initiating litigation related to employment and disciplinary matters. According to the applicant, since at least 2010, he had exhibited persistently vexatious conduct in legal proceedings, with at least 66 known decisions, 21 of which were from the Federal Court of Appeal alone. The Attorney General of Canada consented to the application, as required under subsection 40(2) of the Act.

Basis for the application

The application was based on a documented pattern of litigation abuse, including filing frivolous motions, making scandalous allegations without evidence, disrespecting court processes, and ignoring costs awards and procedural rules. Mr. Abi-Mansour had been repeatedly warned by courts about his conduct, which included attacking the impartiality of judges and opposing counsel, re-litigating settled issues, and misusing the legal process for personal grievances.

Key examples included repeated unfounded allegations of bias, failure to pay court-ordered costs, and abusive language directed at lawyers and judges. The applicant pointed to recent conduct in proceedings related to an unfair representation complaint as further evidence of his continuing vexatious behavior.

Arguments by the respondent

Mr. Abi-Mansour opposed the application on multiple grounds. He argued the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a vexatious litigant order outside an existing proceeding, that such an order would deny him access to justice, and that his conduct did not meet the threshold under section 40. He also challenged the interpretation of the Act and claimed the costs orders created a debtor-creditor relationship governed by provincial enforcement law, thus justifying his non-compliance.

Court’s reasoning

The Federal Court of Appeal, through LeBlanc J.A., firmly rejected all of Mr. Abi-Mansour’s arguments. The Court reaffirmed that section 40 authorizes both stand-alone applications and motions within ongoing proceedings. It noted the purpose of section 40 is not to punish litigants but to preserve the court's resources for legitimate claims and protect access to justice for others.

The Court found the respondent's litigation history and current behavior satisfied the test for a vexatious litigant. It emphasized that a single proceeding could justify such a declaration, but in this case, there was an overwhelming pattern across multiple venues over many years. The Court also found the respondent's disregard for costs orders and procedural rules further supported the need for judicial intervention.

Outcome

The application was granted. Mr. Abi-Mansour was declared a vexatious litigant under section 40 of the Federal Courts Act. He is now barred from initiating or continuing any proceedings in the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal without first obtaining leave of the Court. The Court also noted that any such leave would only be granted if he demonstrated that all outstanding cost awards had been paid in full. This order functions as a gatekeeping mechanism to restrict further abuse of judicial resources.