Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20230929 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0394
Harvison Young, Thorburn and Favreau JJ.A.
BETWEEN
R. Maxine Collins Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario Defendant (Respondent)
Counsel: R. Maxine Collins, acting in person Elizabeth Guilbault, for the respondent
Heard: in writing
Determination pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, with respect to the appeal from the order of Justice Marc E. Smith of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 6, 2023.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Background
The appellant appeals from an order of Smith J. which dismissed the appellant’s claim pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1). The underlying claim related to what the appellant believes is a pattern of behaviour by court staff to obstruct her access to justice. She also claims that, as a whistleblower, she has been discriminated against under s. 15 of the Charter and seeks Charter damages under s. 24(1).
2The respondent, Ontario, made a request to the Superior Court to have Ms. Collins’ action dismissed pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1). On April 6, 2023, Smith J. dismissed the action on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because the statement of claim was unintelligible, incoherent, disjointed, and incapable of success. The claim made bald, broad and vague allegations against courthouse staff without any foundation or particulars to support the claims. He also found that the claim was a clear attempt to relitigate past legal proceedings, and in addition, that court staff enjoy statutory immunity from the allegations raised.
3The appellant has filed an appeal from Smith J.’s decision. Ontario made a request to this court that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to rule 2.1.01(6). In response to a notice from the court, the appellant provided written submissions setting out her position that the appeal should not be dismissed.
[4]
Analysis
The appellant’s arguments on appeal and in her submissions in response to the notice express her general disagreement with Smith J.’s decision, but do not point to any arguable errors. In our view, the motion judge’s reasoning was based on well-settled law on the application of Rule 2.1, as well as statutory and case law which provide that court staff are protected by Crown immunity. Like the claim below, the appeal makes broad and unsustainable allegations against a wide range of individuals which have no prospect of success: Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at paras. 23-24. Thus, the appeal is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, and should be dismissed.
[5]
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
“A. Harvison Young J.A.”
“Thorburn J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”