From RBC to her landlord: BC court blocks ‘vexatious litigant’ who’s sued dozens of times

A BC woman who “habitually and persistently” took people to court has been barred from taking any more legal action after a judge declared her a “vexatious litigant.”

According to an Oct. 24 BC Supreme Court decision, Cheryl Ann Stein was attempting to sue her landlord for “illegally” locking her out when Justice Gordon Weatherill ruled that enough was enough.

“These proceedings are yet another of the many examples of vexatious proceedings instituted by (Stein) against persons in this province,” Justice Weatherill said. “She has done so habitually and persistently without reasonable grounds and undeterred by orders of this court. She has usurped to herself far too much of the Court’s limited resources. The time has come to put a stop to her antics.”

The Justice declared Stein a “vexatious litigant,” barring her from taking legal action without the court’s permission.

“(Stein) is a litigious person with a long and problematic history of bringing legal proceedings. Most, if not all, of them were dismissed at a preliminary stage on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or otherwise constituted an abuse of process,” the Justice said. “In two of the cases, (she) brought civil proceedings against the defendants’ counsel personally after they obtained orders dismissing (her) claims as abusive and vexatious.”

Over the years, Stein, who is in her late 50s, has attempted to sue the Royal Bank of Canada, BCAA, Premier David Eby and around a dozen individuals. She’s also taken the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and others to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

After losing at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, she appealed the case in the BC Supreme Court, BC Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada, losing at each stage.

In the current case, the justice said the court has “repeatedly commented” on her “repetitive and abusive” litigation conduct.

In the current case, Stein attempted to sue the company that own her apartment building, Sylton Holding Management Company, the apartment management company, Pacific Asset Management Corp, her building’s manager, Rany Ratushny, and several employees, for “emotional, psychological, and physical injuries” after being “illegally locked out” of her apartment.

The decision said that in July 2021, Stein spent time in a Penticton psychiatric ward and, while there, sent a text message saying she was moving out.

Several weeks later, she returned to the apartment but couldn’t get in because she had lost her keys while she was in the Okanagan.

“(She) created a considerable disturbance outside the building, verbally abusing some of the tenants and demanding to be let into the building. Eventually, one of the tenants opened the door for her and she was able to gain access to the inside of the building, where she continued to cause a disturbance by yelling and banging on doors,” the decision read.

The police were called and removed Stein, who also goes by the name Jemma Jackson.

The decision said that some weeks later, she moved back into the apartment and still lives there.

The case went to the Residential Tenancy Board, which sided with Stein, saying her text message was not valid notice to end her tenancy and she could stay.

“Curiously, the Residential Tenancy Board did not appear to consider… that a tenancy ends when the landlord and tenant agree in writing to end the tenancy,” Justice Weatherill noted in the decision.

Following the incident, Stein filed three separate compensation claims from the landlord through the Residential Tenancy Board process.

The decision said these were either settled, not accepted, or otherwise resolved, “at least to some extent.”

Stein then filed in the BC Supreme Court for millions of dollars in compensation and claiming defamation as well as physical and emotional distress.

“I found (Stein’s) submissions to be a swirling cocktail of bizarre bafflegab designed to inflame and distract from the issues to be decided,” the Justice said. “They amounted to a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial and/or hearsay-laden assertions that did not assist the Court in its task. I did not find them to be worthy of anything more than little consideration.”

In dismissing her case, and barring her from starting any more, Justice Weatherill said that the “harsh reality” was that court was one of the places where facts mattered.