Frivolous and Vexatious (3). Mukwa v. Farm Credit of Canada
In Mukwa v. Farm Credit of Canada (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal listed typical indicia of vexatious proceedings:
 In addition to the appeals having no hope of success, the appeals exhibit many of the features this court has recognized as characteristic of vexatious litigation, such as:
• Arguments that are unintelligible or highly confused;See Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at paras. 18‑20; Scaduto, at para. 9; Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625, 138 O.R. (3d) 581, at para. 13; and Rallis v. Myers, 2019 ONCA 437, at para. 5.
• Persistent reiteration and amplification;
• Written submissions contain much that is not legally relevant to the dispute;
• Inappropriate submissions in both form (curious formatting, many pages, odd and irrelevant attachments, multiple methods of emphasis) and content (rambling discourse, rhetorical questions, repeated misuse of technical terms, inappropriately ingratiating statements, ultimatums, and threats);
• The persistent pursuit of unsuccessful appeals; and
• Unsustainable allegations and gratuitous complaints against members of the legal profession.
 Although a motion under r. 2.1 focuses on the pleadings in the proceeding under consideration and the submissions of the parties, the court may look to reasons and pleadings in other proceedings to determine whether the case before it is abusive: Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320, 446 D.L.R. (4th) 575, at para. 9, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 39321 (January 28, 2021).
 Various Superior Court of Justice decisions, while the subject of these appeals, have repeatedly and consistently recognized that, rather than pursuing legitimate Indigenous rights claims, Mukwa is engaging in abusive litigation tactics, often called Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”), in order for the appellants to avoid their financial or other legal obligations: Farm Credit Canada v. 1047535 Ontario Ltd., 2021 ONSC 2541, at paras. 29-33; National Bank of Canada v. Guibord, 2021 ONSC 6549, at para. 35; Sarac, at paras. 23-24; and Mukwa, at paras. 28, 44.