A former job applicant who sued Colliers Macaulay Nicolls and one of its employees over an alleged stolen business plan has had her lawsuit stayed after repeatedly refusing to pay court-ordered costs and engaging in what the Ontario Superior Court called “reprehensible conduct.”
A.D. filed her lawsuit in 2018, claiming breach of contract and theft of intellectual property. She alleged that D.H., a Colliers employee, interviewed her for a job, asked for a copy of her business plan, offered her a position, then failed to follow through while using her business plan for the company’s benefit.
A.D. also claimed Colliers and H. were conspiring with her former employer, Intercity Realty, and that the job interview was “a sham designed to coax” her into sharing her business plan.
The defendants denied offering A.D. a position and argued her business plan had no commercial value and wasn’t provided under circumstances creating confidentiality obligations.
Pattern of problematic behaviour
The court noted A.D.’s conduct throughout the litigation became increasingly problematic. After a court-appointed mediator withdrew from the case, stating “this matter is not suitable for mediation,” A.D. accused the mediator of breaching her Charter rights and called the mediator “one sided and corrupt.”
When the defendants successfully moved to exempt the action from mandatory mediation, the court ordered A.D. to pay $5,086.08 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis. The judge found A.D. had “engaged in reprehensible conduct in her interactions with the court-appointed mediator” and was “engaging in an abuse of the court’s process.”
Despite multiple demands from defence counsel, A.D. refused to pay the ordered costs. She told the court she would not pay because she believed a previous judge had reserved all interlocutory costs to the trial judge. However, the court found no evidence supporting this position.
Abusive conduct toward court
A.D.’s behaviour extended beyond refusing to pay costs. She sent emails to the court and others containing personal attacks on judges, including calling one judge “STUPID STUPID STUPID MAN” and describing various judicial officers as “worthless, pointless, hopeless, spineless” and “corrupt.”
During the hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss her case, A.D.’s conduct was “frequently abusive.” She made “attacking and highly disrespectful” submissions about counsel, court staff and judicial officers. When asked to summarize her submissions, she called the judge “absolutely asinine” and disconnected from the virtual hearing.
History across multiple cases
The court noted A.D. had similar problems in other litigation. In a separate action against her former employer, Intercity, multiple judges found her conduct “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.” One judge dismissed her entire claim against Mount Sinai Hospital under a rule allowing dismissal of frivolous actions.
Another judge dismissed her appeal in the Intercity case and awarded substantial costs, noting her “egregious conduct” including “unsubstantiated attacks against judicial officers and officers of the court.”
Court’s reasoning for stay
The court emphasized that enforcing cost orders is crucial for the justice system’s integrity. It noted that failure to ensure compliance “is corrosive of the entire justice system.”
The judge found that impecuniosity wasn’t a factor, as there was no evidence A.D. couldn’t pay the costs. In fact, evidence showed she had travelled to London, England, to gather evidence for her case.
The court applied established principles that self-represented litigants, while entitled to accommodation, “are not entitled to abuse the system or the party opposite.” It noted that failing to enforce orders against self-represented parties “is unfair to the parties opposite and undermines respect for the court and the civil justice system.”
Final opportunity before dismissal
Rather than immediately dismissing the case, the court stayed the action to give A.D. one final chance to pay the outstanding costs. The stay will only be lifted if she pays the original $5,086.08 plus post-judgment interest of $455.65, totaling $5,541.73, along with any additional costs ordered for this motion.
If the amounts aren’t paid within 30 days of the court’s costs ruling on this motion, the lawsuit will be dismissed without further notice.
The court also maintained a previous order preventing A.D. from bringing any further motions without court permission, even if she pays the outstanding costs.
The judge concluded that A.D.’s conduct showed “disruption, drama and no forward progress” and that she “shows no signs of being able to follow directions or govern her behavior as a responsible litigant.”
The court found it would be unfair to require the defendants “to answer the plaintiff’s claims in court when the plaintiff herself simply refuses to abide by the orders of that same court.”
For more information, see Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2025 ONSC 3561 (CanLII).
