G. Avraam

The self-represented plaintiff's action was previously dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 with leave to amend.

After the plaintiff filed a Fresh Amended Statement of Claim, the defendants requested another Rule 2.1.01 review.

The court issued a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and required written submissions.

The plaintiff requested a medical accommodation to provide oral submissions instead, citing autism and difficulty writing.

Although the medical evidence was deficient, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 2.1.01(3) to allow the accommodation, finding no prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiff was permitted to provide a 15-minute oral response.

The defendant university sought to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the claim to be an unintelligible, rambling discourse that failed to disclose a valid cause of action.

However, noting that attached documents suggested a potential core complaint regarding the university's failure to follow a collective agreement when declaring the plaintiff persona non grata, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff 20 days to deliver an amended statement of claim complying with the Rules.

Following a motion by the defendant to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and for summary judgment, the court stayed the action to allow a labour arbitrator to determine jurisdiction and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The court then received written submissions on costs.

Despite the defendant's partial success on the jurisdiction issue, the court awarded costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant's unreasonable delay in bringing the motions.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs for the jurisdiction motion and substantial indemnity costs for the summary judgment motion, totaling $270,162.08.