twb.ROCKS the Vexatious Litigant Smear!

page under development: started 20250714 and last updated 20250714 at 19:47

Political persecution via publicized character smear

Family Court || Criminal Court || Civil Court || Affidavits & Evidence || Ministry Cover-Up || Court of Appeal Cover-Up || Idea for Book Series: #UPIG

After my former whistleblowing website, www.pfi.ROCKS, was temporarily forced down by the Ministry of the Attorney General on 2010409, I originated a massive claim against Ottawa Police Services Board. Instead of choosing to dismiss a handful of rogue officers and make a reasonable offer to settle, they chose to arrange for me to be declared vexatious. During that scandalous process, I made sure to publish as much evidence and incriminate as many judges as possible: the results of my efforts are stored in seven, evidence-laden Affidavits at https://twb.rocks/political-persecution/affidavits and the sortable, searchable MS Excel file that contains the 2015-2024 evidence of court-enabled persecution (which incriminates dozens of judges, cops, lawyers and others) is stored at https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Ftwb.rocks%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F08%2FCV-23-91267-OPSB-v-Moore_Motion-Record-Table-of-Contents-linked_14-SEP-23.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.   Sociopaths: they lie, they cheat, they steal. It’s that simple.

Below is my Errors, Omissions & Malicious Obfuscation Analysis of McVey’s unlawful 20250127 vexatious declaration. I’ll use it to seek leave to continue each civil action listed at https://twb.rocks/political-persecution/civil-court. The exercise will be purely academic to further incriminate McVey and Ottawa’s Civil Court. I will also further incriminate lawyer Michelle Doody by serving on her a Form 51: Request to Admit partially completed at https://twb.rocks/domestic-terrorism/perpetrators/entities/ottawa-police-service/2025-appeal-ops/form-51-request-to-admit_michelle-doody.

Errors, Omissions & Malicious Obfuscation Analysis

[1] The Applicant, the Ottawa Police Services Board, brings a vexatious litigant application pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The OPSB asks me to declare Ms. Moore a vexatious litigant and prohibit her from instituting any new proceedings or continuing any proceedings already instituted by her, except with leave of the Superior Court.

Omission: Counsel for the Ottawa Police Services Board (“OPSB”) initially served and filed a Statement of Defence. After Moore received legal counsel and improved her Statement of Claim, OPSB attempted extortion to force her to discontinue it. Testimony and evidence of this fact is published at https://twb.rocks/domestic-terrorism/perpetrators/individuals/michelle-doody-02. When Moore did not succumb to OPSB bullying tactics, it brought its without grounds vexatious Application on 20230131, the same month that Kiska chose to stop paying any court-ordered spousal support.

Moore immediately began to publish an evidence-laden EO&MO Analysis of OPSB’s defamatory materials (see https://twb.rocks/organized-crime/ottawa-police-services-board_cv-21-00087056_vexatious-application-eomo_deirdre-moore-sean-kiska-cate-kiska_john-kiska); however, they were completely indifferent to being exposed as liars who are involved in organized crime.

[2] Ms. Moore has commenced at least thirteen legal proceedings since 2016. The OPSB has been a named defendant in two of those actions. Many of Ms. Moore’s claims have either been abandoned or struck because they disclose no reasonable cause of action. The OPSB also argues that Ms. Moore’s conduct outside the courtroom has been abusive, inappropriate, and denigrating to the judiciary and the judicial system. The OPSB maintains that Ms. Moore’s vexatious conduct has no end in sight and that the relief sought is necessary to protect innocent targets of her frivolous and harmful litigation, preserve finite court resources, and promote timely access to justice for meritorious claims.

Error, Omission and Malicious Obfuscation: Moore has been attempting to report crime to Ottawa Police Services Board (“OPSB”) since 2014. Instead of receiving assistance, in 2019, OPSB began to bury exculpatory evidence and lie in police reports in order to charge Moore with crimes that she hadn’t committed.

This was well articulated in her Fresh Statement of Claim which is republished here with links to evidence: XXX 

OPSB’s defamatory libel against Moore is self-serving. Clearly, criminals do not like to be caught and Moore’s evidence-laden, whistleblowing site exposes their involvement in multiple crimes and has nothing to do with Moore’s character.

[3] Ms. Moore did not appear at the hearing. 

Moore did not appear at the hearing because she was not aware of the hearing! It was held in her absence so she could not defend herself … intentionally. (insert details/evidence re: Niagara Health)

[4] For reasons given below, I am satisfied that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant, and that the interests of justice demand that Ms. Moore be prohibited from launching any new proceedings or continuing with any existing proceedings, without leave of the Court.

As well as continuing with all of her previous actions, the “interests of justice” suggest that my Action against the Ministry of the Attorney General (a work-in-progress being published at https://twb.rocks/political-persecution/ministry-cover-up) be commenced as soon as possible: career criminals who have fully infiltrated Ottawa’s Crown Attorney’s Office are entirely lawless.

Procedural History

[5] This application was first scheduled to proceed on October 5, 2023. The OPSB consented to an adjournment because Ms. Moore had concerns regarding her internet access and ability to fully participate. The parties agreed to a new hearing date in March 2024.

LOL. Concerns regarding “internet access and ability to fully participate” were due to the years of endless torts and crimes endured by Moore for which she had sought remedy from Civil Court; however, in every case, judiciary officials creatively delayed matters ensuring the defendants could avoid a damage award.

[6] In March 2024, the matter was adjourned a second time because OPSB believed Ms. Moore to be incarcerated. The parties secured a third hearing date of January 9, 2025. In the interim, in July 2024, Ms. Moore launched her own application claiming that this application was vexatious. In August 2024, Ms. Moore wrote to trial coordination and provided it with two new email addresses that she wished trial coordination to use when communicating with her.

LOL. OPSB executed five without grounds arrests/detentions as Moore attempted to report crime (see https://twb.rocks/upig/police/still-alive).

When her action against them is continued, she needs to amended her Statement of Claim to include all of their 2022-2024 torts.

OPSB’s Application was vexatious: Moore provided evidence of the extortion which should have ended the matter.

Moore secured the 20250109 date, not “the parties”. It was scheduled to hear Moore’s Application, not Doody’s.

[7] OPSB served Ms. Moore with its confirmation of application on December 31, 2024, via email at both the email addresses Ms. Moore provided in August 2024.

Moore lost her primary e-mail account when she was kidnapped in Winnipeg, Manitoba 20240913-20241101.

She was then terrorized by the OPSB, OCA and other court-positioned individuals until she departed from Ottawa 2024122x.

[8] The matter could not proceed on January 9, 2025, as planned due to a scheduling issue. Trial coordination wrote to the parties in advance of January 9 to reschedule the hearing. Trial coordination offered January 17, 2025, as a new hearing date. Trial coordination wrote to Ms. Moore via email inquiring about her availability. Counsel for OPSB accepted the January 17 date but Ms. Moore did not respond. Counsel for OPSB also sent emails to Ms. Moore about re-scheduling the hearing. Counsel for OPSB and the trial coordinator wrote a total of five emails to Ms. Moore regarding scheduling, culminating in a final email sent from trial coordination confirming that the hearing would proceed on January 17, 2025, in person.

Moore never confirmed the date for her hearing; so, it should have simply be struck from the roster. Instead, Doody used it to schedule her Application knowing that Moore had not received any e-mails.

Due to ongoing harassment from Family Court and Criminal Court, Moore chose to remain in hospital from 202501xx to 202501xx.

There were no files served on Moore for the last-minute hearing. To Moore’s knowledge, none of her 2024 materials (stored at https://twb.rocks/political-persecution/affidavits) were reviewed by the court even though they were served and filed throughout 2024.

[9] In oral submissions, counsel for OPSB advised me that in the days leading up to the hearing on January 17, 2025, Ms. Moore’s X page had been updated, suggesting that she had internet access.

As already explained, Moore lost her e-mail account for non-payment during her kidnapping in October 2024.

[10] On January 17, 2025, Ms. Moore did not attend the hearing. She did not answer when the Court paged her into the courtroom. I proceeded to hear submissions in Ms. Moore’s absence. The matter has been ongoing for years. At various times, she has engaged with counsel for OPSB and trial coordination. As recently as August 2024, Ms. Moore updated her contact information with the Court. Those email addresses were used by OPSB for the purpose of confirming the application on January 9, 2025, and by trial coordination and OPSB when seeking to reschedule the hearing. I was satisfied that Ms. Moore was aware of the ongoing application and the new hearing date.

Error. Moore was not aware that her hearing date had been hi-jacked by the opposing counsel and re-scheduled.

It she had been award, she would have attempted to have it adjourned as she did with her criminal Application heard from hospital on 202501xx. (insert link)

[11] Ms. Moore married Jonathan Kiska in July 2000. They have two children together. Ms. Moore’s mental health began to decline in 2013. She began experiencing psychotic episodes and was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder. Ms. Moore and Mr. Kiska separated in the fall of 2015. Acrimonious family law proceedings followed. In 2020, those proceedings concluded when the Court awarded Mr. Kiska sole custody of the children on a final basis. Pursuant to that final order, Ms. Moore’s access to the children was to be at Mr. Kiska’s discretion and in accordance with the children’s wishes. The Court also granted Mr. Kiska and the children a restraining order against Ms. Moore pursuant to s. 137 of the Child and Youth Family Services Act.

Kiska’s domestic violence is well-documented at https://twb.rocks/political-persecution/family-court and continues to this day.

Despite her efforts, Moore remains forcibly married against her will and despite all protections codified in Canada’s federal Divorce Act.

This defamatory statement was likely written by Kiska himself: he’s been lying to the courts since 2015.

Ergo, this is simply another judge also guilty of defamatory libel as Moore can dance circles around her adversaries mentally, intellectually and, likely, spiritually. (Hence, the industry-wide collusion to have her silenced.0

[12] Since that time, Ms. Moore has commenced over ten different civil claims, that at their core all relate to the above-noted family law proceedings. These actions include civil claims against her former family law counsel, Mr. Kiska, Mr. Kiska’s family law counsel, medical professionals, the OPSB, the Attorney General of Ontario, a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ms. Moore’s former landlord, a real estate agent, and a paralegal. Ms. Moore believes that these individuals or entities are acting and conspiring as a “crime syndicate” to cover up Mr. Kiska’s abusive behavior and terminate Ms. Moore’s relationship with her children. Ms. Moore also claims that many of these individuals are part of an organized crime ring that facilitates human trafficking and prostitution.

to be continued

[13] This application raises the following issues:

1)      Is Ms. Moore a vexatious litigant?

2)      If so, what reasonable measures are required to protect the administration of justice from Ms. Moore’s vexatious conduct?

x

[14] Section 140(1) of the CJA provides:

If a judge of the Superior Court of Justice or the Court of Appeal is satisfied that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in any court or conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner, the judge may make an order that includes any of the following terms:

  1.   No further proceedings may be instituted by the person in any court, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
  2.   No proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court shall be continued, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
  3.   Any other term that is just.

x

[15] The salient characteristics of vexatious proceedings are described as follows in the leading case of Re Lang Michener et al v. Fabian et al (1987), 1987 CanLII 172 (ON SC), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.):

(a)   the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding;

(b)   where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious;

(c)   vexatious actions include those brought for improper purposes, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;

(d)   it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;

(e)   in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the Court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action;

(f)   the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious;

(g)   the respondent’s conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.

x

[16] The Court of Appeal for Ontario describe the above indicia as “hallmarks of vexatious proceedings, and a vexatious litigant”: Van Sluytman v Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, 2018 ONCA 32, at para 24. To succeed on its application, OPSB need not demonstrate that Ms. Moore exhibits behavior falling within all the above categories: Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 166 v Sennek, 2017 ONSC 5016, at para. 30. Finally, I may also consider Ms. Moore’s conduct “outside the courtroom” when determining whether she is a vexatious litigant: Dobson v Green, 2012 ONSC 443, at para. 12.

x

[17] A review of Ms. Moore’s litigation history with reference to the above principles easily satisfies me that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant. First, Ms. Moore has repeatedly commenced actions that obviously cannot succeed. In 2021, Ms. Moore commenced her first action against the OPSB, along with her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, and Mr. Kiska. Ms. Moore sought $700,000 in damages on the basis that the defendants conspired to perpetrate an eviction fraud against her and that OPS officers failed to adequately investigate. Ms. Moore alleged that her eviction formed part of “new age domestic violence and/or domestic terrorism.” On June 7, 2022, Justice Ryan Bell struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

x

[18] In addition, Ms. Moore has sued her former family law counsel, Victor Vallance Blais LLP, five separate times. The first two actions commenced by Ms. Moore in 2018 were discontinued. In 2019, the third and fourth actions were dismissed by Justice Beaudoin pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that they were devoid of merit on their face. In his endorsement, Justice Beaudoin wrote, “[this] pleading is a clear example of the type of claim targeted by Rule 2.1.01…The facts as pleaded cannot possibly give rise to any such claims which have no chance of success.” In the fifth action, Ms. Moore sought $3,000,000 in general, compensatory, pecuniary, special, and aggravated damages on the basis that her former counsel provided her poor advice resulting in psychological damage to her and her children. On February 25, 2021, Justice Gomery struck the statement of claim, finding that it too disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

LOL. This paragraph is laden with so many errors, omissions and malicious obfuscation that I would need a Third-party Records Motion to refute it all. Suffice it to say that her final sentence does not remotely resemble Gomery’s scandalous decision. Her endorsement stated “” Insert quote and link to endorsement and the three VIS pages for Gomery, Blais and Sviergula.

[19] Second, in my view, Ms. Moore launches court proceedings for improper purposes. In July 2021, Ms. Moore launched her second claim against OPSB. She seeks over $8 million in damages for negligence, negligent investigation, defamation, complicity to arbitrary detention, torture, false imprisonment, assault, battery, accessory to mischief, conspiracy to prosecute, accessory to fraud, knowing assistance of breach in fiduciary duty, deliberate ignorance, malice, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, negligent infliction of emotional suffering and abuse of public service. Ms. Moore claims that OPS officers assisted Mr. Kiska in “illegal child apprehension.”

x

[20]  After commencing this action in July 2021, Ms. Moore wrote an email to counsel for OPSB in which she stated that the action was “good practice” for future claims she wished to bring against other entities. In addition, Ms. Moore subsequently threatened OPSB with further litigation. On October 8, 2021, Ms. Moore told counsel for OPSB that she would initiate a third civil action against OPSB should OPS officers fail to investigate a third criminal report she planned to file regarding “the multiple crimes committed by the white-collar, blue-collar, thug-collar crime ring that eliminated me, a devoted mum, from the lives of my children in the wickedest of ways.”

x

[21] Third, Ms. Moore repeatedly seeks to relitigate the same factual issues and disputes and does so while simultaneously launching claims against her former lawyers. In numerous proceedings, Ms. Moore has repeated the same allegations of conspiracy against Mr. Kiska, Dr. Paule Kemgni, Mr. Kiska’s former counsel, and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa.

I have only alleged conspiracy in criminal allegations against Kiska and his Crown-positioned and OPSB-positioned accomplices as it is an actual crime in the Criminal Code of Canada (see s. 465(1)(b)). For the civil violations, I have alleged collusion as I can prove it. (Insert love triangle photo from 2019 and P.A.S.T. statement re: collusion.

[22] Specifically, in April 2021, Ms. Moore commenced a civil action seeking $1,000,000 in damages from Dr. Kemgni and Mr. Kiska for negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligent infliction of emotional suffering, breach of fiduciary duty, and malice. She alleged that Dr. Kemgni, who conducted a court-ordered psychiatric assessment of Ms. Moore, showed a reckless disregard for the truth and “maliciously obfuscated material facts.” She argued that Dr. Kemgni contributed to the parental alienation she experienced at the hands of Mr. Kiska. On April 7, 2022, Justice Williams stayed the action.

FALSE. Williams ignored my evidence of collusion and split the one civil action into two, forcing the removal of my evidence of collusion (insert links of evidence).

[23] In April 2021, Ms. Moore commenced a civil action against the Attorney General of Ontario. This matter is ongoing. She seeks $1,000,000 in damages due to “Justice Calum MacLeod’s negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional suffering and/or malice.” The statement of claim contains similar allegations of conspiracy against Mr. Kiska, Dr. Kemgni, Mr. Kiska’s former counsel and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa that were made in the claim stayed by Justice Williams.

FALSE. I originated the claim but never served it as I realized that, sadly, judges couldn’t be sued. The matter never went beyond claim origination.

[24] In July 2021, Ms. Moore launched a second claim against OPSB, her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, and Mr. Kiska. Again, she repeated many of the same conspiratorial allegations contained in the two civil actions described above.

FALSE. 

[25] Moreover, Ms. Moore’s various claims involve allegations against lawyers who have acted for and against her in earlier proceedings. As described above, she has sued her former family law counsel five times. In addition, Ms. Moore has launched actions against Addelman Baum Gilbert LLP and Snir Law. Ms. Moore retained Addelman Baum Gilbert in 2019 to defend her against criminal charges and she retained Gonen Snir in 2019 to represent her in family law proceedings. Ms. Moore alleges that her lawyers colluded with other professionals, members of the judiciary, and other justice system participants to undermine her interests. Ms. Moore also commenced an action in 2018 against Mr. Kiska’s counsel in the family law proceedings.

x

[26] Ms. Moore has also attacked the integrity and outcome of family law proceedings, including the child protections proceedings, through concurrent civil actions, which is a collateral attack on both proceedings and constitutes an abuse of process.

LOL. As of 20250714, I am still forcibly married to Kiska despite all of the protections from domestic violence codified in Canada’s federal Divorce Act.

[27] Fourth, Ms. Moore’s litigious history, when viewed holistically, also supports the conclusion that she is a vexatious litigant. She launches claims against defendants when other claims against them remain outstanding. She also discontinues proceedings unceremoniously, which is indicative of a proceeding being brought without reasonable grounds. For example, in July 2024, she launched an application arguing that OPSB’s application was vexatious. She sought to discontinue that application via an email sent to trial coordination and later failed to attend a pre-scheduled case conference. She also discontinued the first two claims she made against her prior family law counsel.

x

[28] Ms. Moore also repeatedly accuses members of the judiciary of bias and professional misconduct. In 2021, Ms. Moore demanded that Justice MacEachern recuse herself at a case conference because Justice MacEachern had made an earlier interlocutory ruling against Ms. Moore in the context of child protection proceedings. Ms. Moore also sought leave from the Divisional Court to appeal the interlocutory ruling at issue. The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal.

LOL. MacEachern commits crime with reckless abandon including, but not limited to, disobeying Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act Civil Rules of Procedure and Family Law Rules (insert evidence). As of 20250714, she (and/or her minions) is/are still delaying/refusing access to Family Court. (insert link) 

[29] Ms. Moore demanded that Justice Gomery recuse herself during OPSB’s motion to strike the first claim Ms. Moore launched against OPSB. More recently, Ms. Moore accused both Justice Corthorn and Associate Justice Fortier of bias.

When judges ignore evidence to rule in favour of perpetrators, that’s called bias. When judges ignore legislation to rule in favour of perpetrators, that’s called bias. (It’s also called organized crime and violates multiple sections of the CCC including, but not limited to, s. 21 (1) Party to Offence.

[30]  Fifth, Ms. Moore has failed to satisfy prior costs awards made against her. In 2022, when dismissing Ms. Moore’s claim against OPSB and the other co-defendants because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, Justice Ryan Bell awarded costs in favor of the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis as Ms. Moore had launched baseless claims against the defendants’ professional integrity. Justice Ryan Bell stated that Ms. Moore’s allegations “impugned the administration of justice and the impartiality of the judiciary.” The costs award made in favor of OPSB remains outstanding.

x

[31] Sixth, and finally, Ms. Moore’s conduct outside the courtroom is also vexatious, scandalous, and inflammatory. On her website, Ms. Moore has posted baseless and derogatory allegations against counsel for OPSB, whom she accused of participating in “organized crime” and “extortion.” She wrote that a named Superior Court Judge was engaged in a “court-enabled cover-up.” She posted that both the Judge and counsel for OPSB have “descended into sociopathy and remain undetected simply because they travel in packs in order to hunt and destroy their prey.” Ms. Moore also accused the Ottawa Crown Attorney’s Office, the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of participating in an “Ottawa-based crime syndicate.” Further, on her website, Ms. Moore accused Justice Gomery (as she then was) of encouraging another Superior Court Judge to be “ruthless” in her treatment of Ms. Moore, and she claimed that Justice MacLeod was “crooked.” Finally, in a small claims matter launched in 2018, Ms. Moore wrote that a support order made by Justice Audet was “fraudulent” and that Justice Audet was “incompetent.”

Here, McVey claimed she was familiar with my whistleblowing site twb.ROCKS. There are literally 10’s of thousands of pages of evidence of court-enabled organized crime published at https://twb.rocks/political-persecution/affidavits.

[32] The purpose of section 140 of the CJA is to “protect honest citizens and litigants and the overall integrity of the justice system against those who continually abuse the court process by engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation”: Dobson, at para. 8; Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. v Hicks, 2019 ONSC 4942, at para. 71. I appreciate that the power to declare someone a vexatious litigant must “be exercised sparingly and with the greatest of care”: Dobson, at para. 6. But even on a restrained and cautious view of the evidentiary record before me, I am more than satisfied that Ms. Moore has continuously abused the court process through meritless litigation and will persist in doing so absent court intervention.

LOL. “Protect honest citizens”? “Integrity of the justice system”? That’s exactly what I am trying to do. What y’all are trying to do is anyone’s guess. (Ensure the entire legal-judicial system is converted to AI asap??)

[33] For the above reasons, I find that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant.

Of course you do. Why would you verify any of Doody’s statements are true when the Mayor has endorsed the persecution of me? Your finding is just as illegally-obtained and unlawful as the order for custody and access of my children to their abusive father when parenting rights are the jurisdiction of the federal Divorce Act and not some exploited provincial [child abduction] Act.

[34] A declaration that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant does not deprive her of an ability to launch bona fide claims. It simply provides a mechanism through which Ms. Moore’s claims, both future and existing, can be vetted before potential defendants are exposed to unrelenting, expensive, and spurious litigation. Ms. Moore must provide a copy of this vexatious litigant order and these reasons to any person or body in respect of whom she initiates or continues a complaint of any kind. Further, in the circumstances, I dispense with the requirement that Ms. Moore approve, as to form and content, the order to be taken out pursuant to these reasons.

x

[35] I understand that Ms. Moore may be involved in ongoing divorce proceedings. Whether or not Ms. Moore is the applicant in those proceedings is unclear to me. The concerns that justify declaring Ms. Moore a vexatious litigant do not apply with the same vigor to those proceedings. Ms. Moore’s problematic civil claims should not impact a potentially legitimate claim for a divorce. This Order shall not affect any ongoing divorce proceedings that Ms. Moore may have initiated. I thank counsel for OPSB for flagging this nuance in oral submissions.

What about the criminal proceedings being executed by Kiska’s OCJ-positioned accomplices? Oh, I guess it was best to simply ignore the 2019-present terrorization by that side of your Syndicate, huh?

[36] The relief requested by OPSB is granted:

1.      This Court declares that:

a.      Deirdre Moore has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious court proceedings and has conducted court proceedings in a vexatious manner within the meaning of ss. 140(1)(a) and (b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

b.      is a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 140 of the CJA.

2.      This Court prohibits Deirdre Moore from, either directly or indirectly, instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted by her in any court, except and until such time as she has obtained leave by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to s. 140(3) of the CJA and as provided for in this order.

3.      This Court orders that all existing actions, appeals, and applications brought by Deirdre Moore, except ongoing divorce proceedings, are immediately stayed except and until such time as she has obtained leave pursuant to s. 140(3) of the CJA and as provided for in this order.

4.      This Court orders that should Deirdre Moore file material seeking to commence or continue a proceeding or any appeal in any court in Ontario without first filing an entered Order permitting her to do so, the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this Order in such a Court.

5.      This Court orders that Deirdre Moore shall deliver a copy of this Order, and of the Reasons for Decision herein dated January 27, 2025, to any person or body with whom she initiates or continues any complaint, including, without limitation, any court, administrative body and/or tribunal, regulatory body, the police, and the Crown.

6.      This Court orders that the requirement for Deidre Moore to approve, as to form and content, this or any other draft order herein is dispensed with.

The changes made to the relevant vexatious-related legislation were not retroactive, McVey. Not only have you made numerous errors in fact, your endorsement is not lawful.

[37] The OPSB has been entirely successful in its application. It claims actual costs of $59,822.20.

LOL. Of course OPSB was “successful”. The hearing was held behind my back so I couldn’t refute their false allegations or present my evidence. Kiska and all of his accomplices have been successful by refusing to let me have a fair trial. (Pssst. That’s how Ottawa’s Political Persecution works, McVey.)

[38] Costs are quintessentially discretionary: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131(1); Restoule v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779, at para. 344. Costs are intended to foster a number of fundamental purposes: 1) indemnify the successful party of the legal costs they incurred; 2) encourage settlement; 3) deter frivolous actions and defences; and 4) discourage unnecessary steps that unduly prolong the litigation: 1465778 Ontario Inc. v. 1122077 Ontario Ltd. (2006), 2006 CanLII 35819 (ON CA), 82 O.R. (3d) 757 (C.A.).

x

[39] Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules delineates factors the court may consider when determining an appropriate amount of costs. Ultimately, the costs fixed by the Court “should reflect more what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant”: Boucher v Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 281 (C.A.), at para. 24. The overall objective of fixing costs is to fix an amount that is objectively reasonable, fair, and proportionate for the unsuccessful party to pay in the circumstances of the case: Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587, at para. 61.

x

[40] With respect to quantum of costs, I have some concerns with the time spent on the application. Lawyers and law clerks spent a total of 326.8 hours on the litigation. Specifically, counsel for OPSB spent 65.8 hours preparing for the hearing and law clerks spent 38.9 hours. This was in addition to the 74 hours counsel spent drafting materials and the 112 hours counsel spent on “strategy and consultation.” Though the applicable legal principles in this area are well-settled, I appreciate that the application required a comprehensive factual record that necessarily took considerable time and effort to produce. However, once counsel collated those materials and drafted written materials, I cannot accept that a further one hundred hours was reasonably required to prepare for the hearing. I have no trouble accepting, however, that the hourly rate charged by counsel was imminently reasonable. Further, the application raises issues of significant importance to OPSB given that Ms. Moore has already launched two claims against OPSB and its individual members, and Ms. Moore has threatened to continue her litigious behavior.

x

[41] I find that fixing costs at $18,000, all inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Costs are payable by Ms. Moore to OPSB within 30 days. What .. A .. Racket.

Insert links to Court of Appeal details and illegality of decision

x

No evidence. No oversight. No accountability. Just co-ordinated smear campaigns to cover-up all of the dirty little secrets that fester at 161 Elgin Street in Canada’s capital. Without question, Ottawa’s judiciay officials are merely conscience-free NPCs who collect their pay cheque (etcetera) at any cost. When TPTB start to come after your children, your assets and/or your livelihood, know that you’ll have no remedy either.

x