Executive Summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Richard Perry's claims against General Motors of Canada and Dueck Richmond stem from a used 2013 GMC Terrain he purchased in 2019 that allegedly burned oil at a problematic rate

• Perry refused GM's offer to repair the piston rings under a special coverage warranty, demanding instead a full engine replacement, and later escalated his damages claim from approximately $40,000 to over $250 million

• Numerous interlocutory applications filed by the self-represented appellant were found to be prolix, rambling, repetitive, and in some cases highly improper, with unsupported allegations of fraud, forgery, and judicial corruption

• Justice Milman ordered Perry to post $50,000 in security for costs, citing the evident weakness of the claim, gross disproportionality of the litigation, and the unlikelihood of the defendants recovering costs

• Leave to appeal the security for costs order was denied by Justice Fenlon on the basis that the proposed grounds had very little merit and it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave

• A vexatious proceedings order was granted under s. 22(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, barring Perry from commencing or continuing related proceedings without leave of the Court

The purchase and the vehicle defect dispute

In 2019, Richard Perry purchased a used 2013 GMC Terrain. He alleges that the vehicle burned oil at a problematic rate. After learning that General Motors of Canada ("GM") would replace the piston rings in the engine if the vehicle's oil consumption was found to be excessive, Perry brought the vehicle to Dueck Richmond Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. ("Dueck") for servicing. Perry alleges that Dueck falsified records, required him to bring the vehicle in for monitoring more frequently than was necessary, and overfilled the engine with oil to conceal the vehicle's true level of oil consumption. When GM offered to repair the piston rings in accordance with one of its special coverage warranties, Perry refused, demanding instead that the entire engine be replaced.

The litigation and escalating claims

Perry commenced the underlying action in September 2021, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy. His initial notice of civil claim sought an order compelling the defendants to replace the vehicle's engine or, alternatively, pay him damages of about $40,000. He also commenced a second action against the seller of the vehicle, LGN, seeking damages of about $35,000. In late 2023, Perry amended both notices of civil claim and began seeking damages in excess of $250 million in each action. In correspondence with counsel on February 21, 2025, Perry asserted that in reality "this is a multibillion dollar claim."

Prolific interlocutory applications and conduct in the lower court

Despite being filed in September 2021, the claim had not advanced very far; examinations for discovery had yet to be scheduled. Perry filed numerous interlocutory applications—including on at least fourteen separate dates between November 2021 and January 2025—seeking to compel document production, amend his notice of civil claim, and punish the defendants and their counsel for alleged misconduct. Justice Milman described these applications as "prolix, rambling, repetitive and in some cases highly improper," with the same or similar relief sought over and over again, at times after the matter had already been adjudicated. Perry also circumvented a court-imposed ten-page limit on his response by attaching a 24-page submission as an exhibit to his affidavit. Perry unilaterally scheduled a 34-day trial to commence on January 5, 2026, which was adjourned generally after Milman J. ordered him to post security for costs on November 18, 2025.

The security for costs order and the leave to appeal decision (2026 BCCA 148)

On November 18, 2025, Justice Milman ordered Perry to post security for costs in the amount of $50,000—$25,000 for each respondent—payable in four equal monthly installments of $6,250. The factors weighing in favour of the order included: the evident weakness of the claim, especially given the lack of expert evidence; the gross disproportionality between the scale of the litigation, including the numerous interlocutory applications and the 34-day trial Perry wished to conduct, and the amount that is realistically at stake; and the unlikelihood that the defendants would recover their costs if they were to succeed at trial, given that Perry owns no substantial assets in the province. Milman J. also noted Perry's history of failing to pay litigation costs in unrelated patent infringement litigation in the United Kingdom, where his claim had been summarily dismissed as devoid of merit, he had become the subject of a bankruptcy order, and he had been found to be serially advancing unmeritorious claims and eventually prohibited from commencing further proceedings without leave of the court. Perry filed a notice of appeal on December 16, 2025, but made no payments toward the security. On March 12, 2026, Justice Fenlon dismissed Perry's application for leave to appeal in oral reasons. She found that the proposed grounds of appeal had very little merit, that the existing law on security for costs was well-settled, and that Milman J. had carefully considered all relevant factors, including the effect the order would have on Perry. Ultimately, she concluded it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave. Because the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, the application for a stay was also dismissed as there was no appeal within which to seek a stay, and GM's application for security for costs of the appeal was rendered moot.

The vexatious proceedings order (2026 BCCA 147)

In a separate written decision dated April 10, 2026, Justice Fenlon granted GM's application for a vexatious proceedings order under s. 22(1) of the Court of Appeal Act. The court reviewed the non-exhaustive factors from Lindsay v. Canada (Attorney General) and found that Perry had persistently and without reasonable cause commenced and continued vexatious proceedings. Perry had repeatedly failed to comply with Court of Appeal timelines, sought multiple extensions of time to file application books, and filed applications to vary orders of Justices Iyer, Riley, and Griffin after each dismissed his prior applications. Despite being cautioned by multiple justices, he continued to make inflammatory and unsupported allegations of fraud, criminal conduct, and misrepresentation against GM and their counsel. Justice Fenlon also considered Perry's conduct in UK patent infringement litigation, where the presiding judge, Hacon J., had described his arguments as "intemperate and eccentric" and his behaviour as "unrestrained and frequently abusive."

The ruling and outcome

Pursuant to the order, Perry—or any person acting on his behalf—is barred from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the Court of Appeal connected to his 2013 GMC Terrain or the claims in Vancouver Registry action number S218173, or any claims arising from that proceeding, without leave of the Court. Any request for leave to commence proceedings must be accompanied by a written argument of no more than ten pages, inclusive of attachments, while any request to continue proceedings must not exceed five pages, inclusive of attachments. The registry was directed to discard any pages exceeding these limits. Two exceptions were carved out: Perry does not require leave to file an application seeking to vary or cancel the vexatious proceedings order itself, or within the proceeding to discharge or vary the January 22, 2026 order of Griffin J.A. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the application. No specific monetary award was granted to either party in these appellate decisions beyond the pre-existing $50,000 security for costs order from the court below.