Manitoba court restricts repeat government lawsuits but preserves statutory appeals

A Manitoba business operator and related companies face advance court screening of further claims against government after a judge found a pattern of repeatedly reviving rejected litigation. But the order preserves statutory appeals and a particular land-transfer-tax dispute rather than imposing an absolute ban on access to court.

In 10042210 Manitoba Inc. et al. v. The City of Winnipeg, 2026 MBKB 35, issued March 12, 2026, Justice Rempel of the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba struck the challenged actions except the tax appeal, granted Winnipeg’s application for a vexatious-litigant order and established detailed filing and registry-contact rules.

Repeated claims, not simply unpaid costs

Ayaz Ahmad was the directing mind of two companies operating a Winnipeg convenience store and courier business. He brought some proceedings personally and others through the companies. The eight matters before the judge included the city’s application to restrict further litigation.

The reasons recorded at least 31 claims or applications since 2022, of which 21 had been dismissed or struck. They also recorded 26 notices of appeal concerning those proceedings, with four still pending when the judgment was issued. The numbers therefore did not represent 31 adverse judgments or a finding that every appeal had failed.

The disputes included tobacco seizures and licensing, retail sales tax, police conduct, traffic enforcement and attempts to file documents at the registry. The judge found that fresh proceedings repeatedly repackaged previously rejected allegations, rather than identifying legally sustainable new claims.

There were important qualifications to that history. Ahmad had paid every costs award made against him, was punctual, met filing deadlines and behaved courteously toward the judge and opposing counsel. The court nevertheless found that those payments had not deterred the repeated litigation.

Ahmad chose to rely on his written briefs rather than make oral submissions. When questioned, he explained that he had paid the costs of previous actions and should not be limited in the arguments he could advance later. The judge rejected that understanding: costs did not compensate fully for opponents’ expenses, public court resources or the effect on other litigants waiting for hearings.

Why the claims were struck

The court distinguished defective or unsuccessful litigation from the broader pattern needed to restrict a litigant’s future access. A vexatious-litigant order is an exceptional screening mechanism, not a punishment for an isolated mistake or an unfamiliarity with legal procedure.

For the actions being struck, the judge found pleading defects that prevented the responding parties from fairly understanding and answering the claims. Repetition of disputes already decided also undermined the finality of litigation. The reasons rejected arguments such as the assertion that Winnipeg was not a legally constituted municipality.

The judge also found no legal basis in the particular application to make Manitoba or Canada answer for alleged Winnipeg police conduct. Manitoba was removed from that application and the attempt to add Canada was refused. That ruling addressed the claims as pleaded; the decision did not award damages for the alleged conduct.

Manitoba itself asked that a separate land-transfer-tax refund proceeding be excluded from the striking order because it was a statutory appeal. Counsel agreed that an order restricting future litigation should not encompass appeals available as of right under legislation. The court preserved that proceeding.

A broader pattern justified advance screening

Under section 73 of the Court of King’s Bench Act, a judge may require permission before further proceedings are started or existing ones continued where a person persistently starts vexatious proceedings or conducts proceedings vexatiously. The assessment is objective and considers the whole history, rather than relying on one decisive factor or requiring proof of a particular subjective motive.

Justice Rempel found that Ahmad and the companies had crossed the line between an overzealous approach in a particular dispute and an abusive litigation strategy. Repeated claims without a reasonable cause of action forced the targeted governments to spend substantial public time and resources responding.

The reasons also distinguished Ahmad’s courtroom courtesy from his dealings with registry staff. The judge found that he persisted when deficient documents were rejected and tried alternative delivery methods for previously rejected material. Protecting staff and orderly filing procedures formed part of the justification for the operational restrictions.

The resulting order binds Ahmad, the two named companies and their assignees. It also extends to other corporations in which he is an officer, director or shareholder and unincorporated businesses or entities in which he holds a financial or equitable interest. It prevents those parties and people acting for them from refiling or continuing the actions that were struck.

What the order does and does not prevent

For future restricted claims filed at a Manitoba King’s Bench registry, the order requires prior judicial permission. Its scope includes claims against Winnipeg, Manitoba and Canada and their specified officials and representatives; claims against statutory or administrative bodies and government agencies; and claims involving parties that may seek indemnity, contribution or other relief from the targeted governments.

The restricted-claims category expressly excludes applications limited to statutory appeals from government bodies or agencies, an application to rescind the vexatious-litigant order and the surviving land-transfer-tax proceeding. Those exceptions do not remove all filing controls: documents in unrestricted matters, defences and responses must still be mailed to the designated judge for vetting before an authorized registry visit.

To seek permission for a new restricted claim, the proposed legal document must set out its basis in no more than five pages. A separate sworn affidavit, also limited to five pages, must describe the supporting facts and confirm that outstanding costs awards have been satisfied. The materials go by ordinary mail to the judge without prior notice to the proposed opponents.

If permission is granted, the documents can be filed and served under the prescribed process, together with the order. A restricted claim filed without permission can be stayed against a targeted party when a named litigant or counsel files a requisition and a true copy of the order. Registry staff can reject non-compliant documents.

The order also limits Ahmad’s registry inquiries to one email a week about an intended or existing proceeding, prohibits direct contact with judges or judicial assistants and bars personal registry attendance to discuss restricted claims. Approved filings in other matters remain possible within a visit period designated by the reviewing judge.

The judgment left costs to agreement or written submissions and fixed no new costs amount. Its practical consequence is a structured permission and document-review process, with express exceptions—not a ruling on the merits of the preserved tax appeal or a complete removal of the right to seek legal redress.