Wong et al. v. Giannacopoulos et al., (2011) 510 A.R. 234

• Judge: Slatter, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 29, 2011
• Citations: (2011), 510 A.R. 234;2011 ABCA 206

Wong v. Giannacopoulos (2011), 510 A.R. 234; 527 W.A.C. 234 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. JL.052

V.W. Wong (respondent/appellant) and Monica Leung and A. Leung, Guardian and Trustee for Y.W. Leung (not parties to the application/appellants) v. Vicki Giannacopoulos, Rebecca Cormack, Christina Lynne Tchir, McLennan Ross LLP, Chris Dundas, Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, Ian Darrell Awid (applicants/respondents) and Jane Doe #1-8 and John Doe #1-8 (not parties to the application/respondents)

(1103-0031-AC; 2011 ABCA 206)

Indexed As: Wong et al. v. Giannacopoulos et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Slatter, J.A.

July 5, 2011.

Summary:

Wong and others sued two sets of defendants. Wong's action was dismissed because it failed to disclose a cause of action, was frivolous or vexatious and was an abuse of process. Wong filed an appeal. The defendants applied for security for costs respecting the appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 510 A.R. 92; 527 W.A.C. 92, per Watson, J.A., allowed the application for security. The defendants applied under s. 23.1 of the Judicature Act for a vexatious litigant order.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Slatter, J.A., granted the vexatious litigant order.

Practice - Topic 46

Actions - Commencement of - General principles - Bars - Vexatious litigant - [See Practice - Topic 8855 ].

Practice - Topic 8855

Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Vexatious litigants - Wong commenced an action against two sets of defendants arising from a 2003 action she was not a party to - Wong was attempting to commence proceedings on behalf of third parties who did not authorize her to do so - Wong's action was dismissed because it failed to disclose a cause of action, was frivolous or vexatious and was an abuse of process - Wong appealed - The defendants, after successfully applying for security for costs, applied under s. 23.1 of the Judicature Act for a vexatious litigant order - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Slatter, J.A., granted the vexatious litigant order - Wong could not sue to enforce rights of third parties without authority and respecting a matter she was not a party to - The court noted that court records disclosed a history of vexatious litigation dating from 1994, much of which was initiated by Wong while she was self-represented - The court prohibited any further proceedings without a court order and subject to strict conditions.

Cases Noticed:

Boychuk v. Boychuk (2001), 304 A.R. 398; 2001 ABQB 1049, refd to. [para. 7].

Minit Holdings (1996) Ltd. et al. v. Cassidy et al., [2008] A.R. Uned. 324; 2008 ABQB 260, refd to. [para. 7].

Pawlus v. Pope et al. (2004), 357 A.R. 347; 334 W.A.C. 347; 2004 ABCA 396, refd to. [para. 7].

Counsel:

D.G. Woodske, for the applicants, Vicki Giannacopoulos, Christina Lynne Tchir, McLennan Ross LLP, and Rebecca Cormack;

S.E. Hart, for the applicants, Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., Ian Darrell Awid and Chris Dundas;

V.W. Wong, self-represented.

This application was heard on June 29, 2011, before Slatter, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on July 5, 2011.