Godoy v. Godoy, 2022 ONCA 828

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20221129 Docket: C70737

Judges: Gillese, Benotto and Harvison Young JJ.A.

Between:

Jose Godoy Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Caroline Godoy, Bernard Rubin, Vanessa Ford, Kathleen Smales, Erica Piercy, Sanford Bell, Paul Martin, David Slessor and Kristen Pollok Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

Jose Godoy, acting in person Bruce Hutchison, for the respondents David Slessor and Kristen Pollok Aaron Crangle, for the respondents Carolina Godoy, Bernard Rubin, Kathleen Smales and Sanford Bell Rafal Szymanski, for the respondents Vanessa Ford and Paul Martin

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the order of Justice Stephen T. Bale of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 12, 2022.

Reasons for Decision

1This is an appeal from an order dismissing a proceeding pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, on the basis it was an abuse of process.

I. Background

2In February 2019, the appellant was charged with criminal harassment and harassment in respect of his repeated communications with the respondent, Caroline Godoy, including at her workplace. In June 2020, the appellant entered into a peace bond in exchange for the withdrawal of the charges. He then filed a 77-page statement of claim against her and others alleging mistreatment arising from the criminal charges (the “Claim”).

3In the Claim, the appellant makes allegations against Ms. Godoy and the other respondents, Bernard Rubin (Ms. Godoy’s employer), Kathleen Smales (Mr. Godoy’s co-worker), Sanford Bell (Mr. Godoy’s co-worker), Vanessa Ford (Police Constable), Paul Martin (Chief of Police), Kristen Pollock and David Slessor (Crown Attorneys). The Claim appears to be for malicious prosecution.

4On January 31, 2022, the respondents jointly requested that the court dismiss the Claim, pursuant to r. 2.1.01(6), on the basis it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

5The requested order was made on May 12, 2022, on the grounds the proceeding was an abuse of process.

6The appellant appeals that order. We understand his appeal to allege that the motion judge acted negligently in dismissing his action because he failed to consider the written submissions the appellant said he provided in response to the Form 2.1A Notice sent pursuant to r. 2.1.01(3).

7The appeal was scheduled to be heard, in writing, on November 24, 2022. Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the appellant sent the court an email asking for an adjournment. No reasons for the requested adjournment were given. The adjournment was opposed. The court denied the adjournment and advised that the hearing would proceed, in writing, as scheduled.

II. Analysis

8A motion judge’s ruling under r. 2.1.01 is a discretionary decision entitled to appellate deference. Such a decision can be set aside only if the motion judge misdirected themselves or their decision was so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice: Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690, at para. 8.

9We see no misdirection on the part of the motion judge nor is the decision so clearly wrong that it amounts to an injustice.

10The motion judge gave careful, informed reasons for dismissing the proceeding. He outlined the procedural history of the matter and correctly set out and applied the relevant legal principles governing r. 2.1.01. Although the Claim identified no cause of action as against the respondents, the motion judge distilled the essential nature of the appellant’s cause of action as malicious prosecution.

11In granting the r. 2.1.01 order, the motion judge reviewed the lengthy evidentiary record to explain why the Claim amounted to an abuse of process. For example, the motion judge discussed the “disturbing” emails the Divisional Court received from the appellant which cast unfounded aspersions against a judge before whom he had previously appeared, aspersions for which he was not cited in contempt because of his mental health challenges. Another example of conduct that the motion judge relied upon relates to the Form14F “Information for Court Use” that plaintiffs are required to file with their statements of claim. The motion judge found that, in the present case, the appellant filed multiple forms entitled “Information for Court Use” in which he maligns the defendants, judges, and justice system generally.

12After considering the totality of the evidence before him, the motion judge found the appellant’s Claim and his communications with the court are an abuse of process and the “abuse must stop”.

13The appellant argues that the motion judge failed to consider his written submission allegedly sent to the court in response to the Form 2.1A Notice. However, the appellant provides no evidence that this submission was successfully filed. Assuming that it was, the submission would not have made a material difference to the outcome because it does not differ in substance from the materials that were before the motion judge.

III. Disposition

14Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents fixed at $750, all inclusive.