The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has required Nathan Kirk Dempsey to obtain the court’s permission before starting or continuing proceedings in that court, after finding a sustained pattern of abusive litigation in his dispute with Pagefreezer Software Inc. and Michael Riedijk.
Justice Jamie S. Campbell made the vexatious-litigant finding in Dempsey v. Pagefreezer Software Inc., 2026 NSSC 254, dated August 18, 2026. The restriction preserves Dempsey’s right to respond to proceedings; it is not a complete bar on participating in court or an automatic nationwide filing ban.
The judge also dismissed a separate application seeking a public hearing of a motion already governed by a sealing order. Campbell held that changing the court file number could not be used to avoid that order.
Persistence alone is not enough
Pagefreezer and Riedijk sought the declaration under section 45B of Nova Scotia’s Judicature Act. The provision permits restrictions where a person has habitually and persistently pursued proceedings without reasonable grounds or conducted them vexatiously.
Campbell emphasized that determination, disagreement with authority and repeated losses do not by themselves make someone a vexatious litigant. The court must distinguish a person pursuing a difficult case from a pattern of abusing the legal process.
The court’s inherent authority to regulate its proceedings also allowed it to consider conduct outside Nova Scotia. A British Columbia vexatious-litigant finding was relevant evidence, Campbell said, but did not bind the Nova Scotia court or automatically determine the result.
Dempsey relied on an Alberta appeal decision emphasizing fair and proportionate restrictions, access to justice and alternatives such as case-management orders. That decision also warned against using a vexatious-litigant designation simply to punish contempt or prevent someone from defending a case.
Campbell accepted the distinction between preventing future abuse and punishing past conduct. But he found that Dempsey had initiated litigation and repeatedly sought fresh motions and appeals, rather than merely defending the enforcement proceedings.
A repeated effort to revisit concluded issues
The dispute began in British Columbia in 2021 and later extended to Nova Scotia as Pagefreezer and Riedijk sought to enforce costs judgments. The public reasons describe repeated attempts to reopen matters already decided, unsuccessful efforts to halt enforcement, failures to comply with court orders and continued disclosure of material covered by confidentiality orders.
Campbell found that the same pattern had continued in Nova Scotia. He pointed to repeated challenges to concluded costs issues, unsuccessful recusal motions and attempts to avoid an existing sealing order through a new proceeding.
The judge treated the overall pattern, rather than any single loss or contempt finding, as the basis for the restriction. The August decision did not impose a new custodial sentence or award the historical costs amounts discussed in its account of earlier litigation.
A public decision, but sealed underlying files
Dempsey argued that his separate application did not overturn the existing sealing order: he wanted the question of openness heard publicly under a different file. Campbell rejected that distinction. A separate proceeding could not obtain a result that effectively circumvented an order instead of challenging it through the proper route.
The judge dismissed that application as an abuse of process and directed that the new file also be permanently sealed. The reasons explain that the existing order protected sensitive personal and commercial information and respected related court orders from another province.
Campbell expressly stated that his decision itself would be published because it disclosed no confidential information. The public explanation of the procedural ruling was therefore distinct from access to the protected filings.
Later ruling on the scheduling challenge
The August reasons referred to a pending Supreme Court of Canada leave application concerning the earlier decision to hear Dempsey’s openness application and the vexatious-litigant motion together.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s docket records that leave from the related June 2026 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruling was refused on October 1, 2026. The requests for a stay and expedition were also dismissed. That proceeding concerned the scheduling challenge, not an appeal deciding the merits of the August vexatious-litigant designation.
The August ruling left costs for further written submissions. Its central measure was a permission requirement for starting or continuing proceedings in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, while leaving the ability to respond intact.
