 |
| John L. Hill |
Hart was convicted in 2015 of driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. Her appeal and subsequent application for leave to appeal were dismissed in 2016. She has since made three attempts (in 2024 and 2025) to reopen her leave application, all of which have been rejected. The Ontario Court of Appeal found her latest (third) application meritless, reiterating that no new or material circumstances were presented. The court criticized her repeated filings as an abuse of the appellate process and has now barred her from submitting any further documents regarding the 2015 conviction without prior written permission from a judge. It was a situation where Hart was using a revolving door to enter, exit and re-enter the appellate system with nothing new to add.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has the authority to prevent a vexatious litigant from initiating further proceedings. However, it
Oleksandr Slobodianiuk: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Under s. 140(1), a judge of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice can declare a person a vexatious litigant. Once declared, that individual may not initiate or continue legal proceedings without leave (permission) from a judge. Such restrictions are typically imposed when someone repeatedly files frivolous claims in a civil case.
While s. 140 orders are usually issued by the Superior Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal has the authority to oversee its own procedures and limit access to its court, such as prohibiting further filings without permission, especially in cases of abuse of process. In this instance, Melissa Hart simply refused to accept “no” when attempting to appeal her conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit. This power comes from the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse and to ensure judicial resources are not misused.
In Hart, the Court of Appeal did not issue a formal s. 140 declaration but instead imposed filing restrictions on Hart regarding her 2015 conviction. This represents a more limited, case-specific restriction rather than an overall bar on all litigation.
Restricting an appellant’s right to appeal a criminal conviction in Canada is uncommon, except in cases where the appellant repeatedly abuses the appeal process. However, as the three-judge panel held in the Hart case, the drastic step was taken.
In criminal law, an accused person has a statutory right to appeal, but only under certain conditions: (1) an appeal against conviction generally requires leave (permission) if it involves a question of mixed fact and law; and (2) appeals as of right are allowed on pure questions of law. This means that not every conviction is automatically appealable, and procedural steps must be followed correctly.
Courts generally permit a first appeal and sometimes a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada, unless it’s frivolous. However, if someone repeatedly files meritless motions, appeals or applications — often relying on the same arguments that have already been rejected — courts may eventually limit future filings to safeguard the integrity of the justice system. In Hart, the court made it very clear that no new information or innovative interpretation of the law was being examined. The court indicated that its process was being misused and denied further access.
Restricting a criminal appellant’s right to appeal is rare and typically occurs only after repeated abuse of the court’s process. Courts aim to maintain access to justice, but they must also prevent litigants from using the system as a platform for personal grievances.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.