The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has called a halt to a drawn-out legal battle that started with a traffic accident in 1983 and grew to include allegations of a vast conspiracy and the declaration that one man is a vexatious litigant.

It means the man can't pursue his case any further without the court's permission.

That man is Thomas Percy Tupper, who was involved in that traffic accident early in the morning of June 4, 1983.

Tupper was riding a motorcycle when he struck and injured a pedestrian. Tupper was uninsured and riding without a headlight. The pedestrian was drunk and unable to avoid the collision.

A judge decided Tupper was 75 per cent responsible for the collision and awarded the pedestrian more than $28,000. Because Tupper was unable to pay his share, his driver's licence was suspended.

Tupper came to believe he was the victim of a vast conspiracy that started with the pedestrian and spread to include lawyers and judges who have dealt with his case over the years.

But last week, the appeals court brought an end to his 32-year legal fight by upholding a lower court decision against Tupper that said he made "scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations against all defendants."

"It has been made abundantly clear to Mr. Tupper that there is no merit to his conspiracy theory," Chief Justice Michael MacDonald wrote in the decision released Friday.

The judge said the pedestrian did not deliberately allow Tupper to strike him so that he could sue him. He added that none of the subsequent judges and lawyers involved in the case covered it up as part of a conspiracy. He said the lower court rightly declared the present action to be "an abuse of process."

A full panel of five judges heard the case.

'The math is simple'

The vexatious litigant declaration is meant to provide timely access to the courts for other people.

"The math is simple," Justice MacDonald wrote. "Every sitting day taken up by one litigant represents a day denied to those waiting in line."

"For him [Tupper], it is a legitimate quest for justice," the judge continued. "For the respondents, it is an abusive pursuit of a baseless claim, which continuously expands to include anyone who gets in his way."

Tupper doesn't agree with the ruling.

"They ruled I waste court time yet when I sued starting in 2005 they not me used the court to stop me," Tupper emailed to CBC News.

"If you don't see the injustice in saying I have no claim but give no analysis to prove it then you are only telling the defence side only of this story."

The Court of Appeal said there is no question that Tupper meets the definition of vexatious litigant and should be stopped.

"Firstly, in the adversarial context, a court that tolerates abuse by one litigant, inevitably permits an injustice to the opposing litigant," the decision note.

"Secondly, and more fundamentally, courts cannot function unless their decisions and judgments are respected. To be respected, they must stand firm against abuse. Otherwise, the entire system risks falling into disrepute."