British Columbia Court of Appeal (Canada) upholds vexatious litigant designation following repeated employment-related claims

At a glance

• The British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) has dismissed all appeals brought by a former employee who was declared a vexatious litigant after filing six separate proceedings arising from the same underlying employment dispute.  

• The BCCA confirmed that the doctrine of res judicata prevents a party from re-packaging previously rejected arguments, including allegations of fraud, and presenting them afresh to the courts.  

• The BCCA reinforced that allegations of bias or fraud must be grounded in evidence, not speculation, and that disclosure applications amounting to a 'fishing expedition' will be refused.  

• Employers involved in protracted disputes with former employees should be aware that courts may restrict a litigant's access to the courts where proceedings are found to be habitual, persistent and without reasonable grounds. 

Background

Under section 18 Supreme Court Act (British Columbia), a court may declare a person to be a vexatious litigant and prohibit them from commencing further proceedings without leave where they have habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings. In Pereira v British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2026 BCCA 271, the BCCA considered whether the lower court had properly exercised this power in the context of a longstanding employment dispute.  

The appellant's employment was terminated by her employer in September 2020. Her union pursued and settled two grievances on her behalf, which brought to a close the full scope of claims connected to her employment. Unhappy with the terms agreed, the appellant lodged complaints contending that her union had failed to meet its obligation of fair representation. The British Columbia Labour Relations Board (Board) rejected both complaints, and the appellant's subsequent requests for reconsideration were unsuccessful. The appellant challenged all four Board decisions through judicial review, but those proceedings were dismissed at every level, culminating in a refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.  

Key details

Despite exhausting all avenues of appeal, the appellant filed a fresh petition for judicial review, alleging the original Board decisions had been obtained by fraud. The chambers judge struck that petition on the basis of res judicata, finding it represented a clear case of re-litigation. The BCCA agreed, noting that regardless of how the appellant reframed her arguments, the underlying issues had already been decided.  

The chambers judge also reviewed six separate proceedings brought by the appellant in connection with the same dispute and concluded that five were vexatious in nature – involving the re-hearing of decided matters, lacking in merit, initiated for collateral purposes or aimed at counsel representing the other side. The appellant was declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from commencing further proceedings in any court without leave of a justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, except in relation to family law matters. The BCCA upheld this order, noting the appellant had declined to make submissions on the vexatious litigation application and had not identified any reviewable error.  

On the question of judicial bias, the BCCA conducted a thorough review of the appellant's numerous grounds of complaint and found that none, whether taken alone or together, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court emphasised that the presumption of judicial impartiality carries considerable weight and that an allegation of bias must be assessed through the lens of a fully informed and reasonable member of the public.  

The BCCA further dismissed the appellant's application to adduce fresh evidence, concluding that it did not satisfy the Palmer test (Palmer v The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759) because it was unlikely to have changed the result. A separate application seeking wide-ranging disclosure was also rejected on the basis that it amounted to conjecture rather than a grounded request.  

Employer checklist

• Keep thorough records of how grievances are resolved. When a settlement negotiated through a union brings all outstanding and foreseeable claims to an end, ensure that the terms and scope of that resolution are clearly documented.  

• Watch for recurring claims from the same individual. Where a former employee continues to launch fresh proceedings connected to a dispute that has already been fully adjudicated, consider whether the threshold for a vexatious litigant application under section 18 Supreme Court Act has been met.  

• Track the practical toll of ongoing litigation. If an application to restrict further proceedings becomes necessary, a record of the time, expense and operational disruption caused by successive claims will be valuable evidence of the impact on both the organisation and the court system.