Christian Halt

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay an action for want of jurisdiction, or alternatively to decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, a U.S. resident, commenced an action in Ontario seeking $2 million in damages for injuries sustained in a trip and fall incident at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Alberta.

The court found no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the dispute for Parks Bottom and Fairmont Banff Springs, and determined that Accor and OMERS had rebutted the presumption of jurisdiction.

The court also found that Alberta was a far more convenient forum.

The action was stayed against all defendants.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the defendants' cross-motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendants argued the claim was vexatious, frivolous, or an abuse of process, being an attempt to re-litigate matters previously decided in Federal Court.

The court found that the plaintiff's current claims for monetary damages, including allegations of conspiracy, malicious prosecution, negligence, defamation, and employment rights violations against the RCMP, had been extensively litigated and conclusively decided against him in numerous prior Federal Court proceedings (8 actions, 2 judicial review applications, 12 appeals).

Applying principles of res judicata and abuse of process, the court determined the claim was a clear abuse of process and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, declining to award costs.

The plaintiff, Gary Sauve, brought a motion seeking procedural relief to pursue claims, primarily against his former employer, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), for alleged harms leading to his discharge.

He also sought to re-litigate multiple proceedings previously pursued in the Federal Court of Canada.

The court found the plaintiff's materials incomprehensible and unsupported by admissible evidence.

The motion was dismissed, as the continuation of the action was deemed manifestly vexatious, an abuse of process, and the claims were long since statute-barred.

The plaintiff's requests for state-funded counsel, a fee waiver, injunctive relief, and joining additional defendants were also denied due to lack of supporting evidence.