Lin v. Zhang, 2016 ONSC 2485

CITATION: Lin v. Zhang, 2016 ONSC 2485

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: 041/15, 650/15 and 100/16

DATE: 20160418

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS. 650/15 AND 041/15

BETWEEN:

Katherine Lin Appellant/ Tenant

– and –

Song Lin Zhang and Jing Zhang Respondents/Landlords

Appellant, In person

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. 100/16

BETWEEN:

Katherine Lin Applicant

-and-

Shen Lang Yong Respondent

Appellant, In person

HEARD in writing

RULING

h. sACHS J.

1On March, 22, 2016 I directed the Registrar, pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to give notice to Ms. Lin that the court was considering making an order dismissing two appeals and one application brought by Ms. Lin on the basis that they appeared on their face to be frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process of the court. Ms. Lin was given 15 days from receipt of the notice to file written submissions on these matters, not to exceed ten pages in total. These are three of 13 proceedings that Ms. Lin has commenced in the Divisional Court in the past two years.

2On March 24, 2016, Ms. Lin filed a response in respect of each of the three proceedings at issue. The response was basically the same with respect to all three and read as follows:

Overview

1. This is one of the part of the rare, extremely big and serious harassment case which the harassment operate by National Police, conspired with the court, and the harassment is ongoing.

Fact

2 The central issues of the Application have been proven by the facts and the super strong evidences which from the Respondents own words and legal documents; but Landlord and Tenant Board Ontario deliberately violated the law dismissed the case.

3The Respondents attempted escaping the hearing, had written the court, but Judge made an order stayed for File No. 650/15

[in the judicial review application these paragraphs read as follows]

2.The central issues of the Application have been proven by the facts and the super strong evidence from the legal document; Human Right Ontario deliberately violated the law dismissed the case; Human Right Ontario involved in the harassment deeply which is one of the Respondents file No. M46234

Issue and law

4. The letter dated March 24, 2016 from the Registrar…of Divisional Court is abusing the process of the court, misused rule 2,1.01 (or Rule 2.1.02).

Request

5. The Applicant asking the court follow the rule processing to serious law.

3Turning to the three proceedings, they may be summarized as follows:

(a) In 041/15 Ms. Lin is appealing an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board in which the Board dismissed her claim against her former landlords for harassment. The Board did so on the basis that the claim had already been the subject of a previous application and that on its face it was frivolous and vexatious. In her Notice of Appeal Ms. Lin requests what she requested before the Board ($800,000) and cites as her grounds that the facts showed that her former landlords had harassed her and that the harassment was ongoing and that “There are strong evidences showed the Board members involved in the harassment, violated the law made the sick judgments.”

(b) In 650/15 Ms. Lin is appealing another order of the Landlord and Tenant Board in relation to the same landlords. In that order the Board dismissed her claim that her former landlords had collected money from her illegally and awarded her $3.54 in interest on her deposit. In her Notice of Appeal from that decision Ms. Lin cites the same grounds as she did in the File No. 041/15.

(c) In 100/16 Ms. Lin seeks by way of relief on a judicial review application damages in the amount of $60,000.00. That is the only relief she seeks. The application appears to involve a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing an application she brought there on the basis that it disclosed no allegation of conduct that violated the Human Rights Code.

4Each of these proceedings are, on their face, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process. The Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Landlord and Tenant Board except on questions of law and Ms. Lin’s Notices of Appeal raise no questions of law. The application for judicial review seeks damages, something the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to grant on such an application.

5For these reasons, each of these proceedings is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Sachs J