Court File and Parties

Citation: Adamson v. Iracleous, 2016 ONSC 6055 Divisional Court File No.: 397/15 Date: 2016-09-27

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

Re: IVY ADAMSON v. PANAVIOTIS IRACLEOUS

Before: NORDHEIMER J.

Heard at Toronto: written submissions

Endorsement

[1] Notice was given by the Registrar, pursuant to r. 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, to Ms. Adamson that the court was considering making an order dismissing an application for judicial review brought by Ms. Adamson on the basis that the proceeding appears to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Ms. Adamson was given fifteen days, from receipt of the notice, to file written submissions on these matters, not to exceed ten pages in total. On September 19, 2016, Ms. Adamson filed a letter in response to the Notice.

[2] Ms. Adamson appears to have a complaint with respect to Dr. Iracleous although the background and nature of that complaint is unclear.

[3] Ms. Adamson did make a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The College decided that no action was warranted on Ms. Adamson’s complaint. The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirmed that decision. Neither the College or the Board are parties to Ms. Adamson’s application for judicial review. Curiously, while Dr. Iracleous is the named respondent in the application for judicial review, his name does not appear anywhere in the thirty-eight grounds listed in the application.

[4] In addition, the application for judicial reviews seeks as relief that the Attorney General of Ontario “grant me Eleven Million dollars for all my pains and sufferings and future medical and activites of daily life expenses”. Monetary relief is not a form of relief granted by way of judicial review. And, of course, the Attorney General of Ontario is not a named respondent.

[5] In her letter, Ms. Adamson complains that she is not a lawyer and that her efforts to find a lawyer to assist her with this matter have been frustrated at every turn. She also complains about her medical conditions and her suffering. Ms. Adamson asks the court “to use your professional judgment to fix what is done wrong”. That is not, of course, something that the court either can do or should do.

[6] In the end result, it is clear that the application for judicial review is fundamentally flawed and amounts to an abuse of the court’s process. The application is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

NORDHEIMER J.

DATE: September 27, 2016