CITATION: Adamson v. Lo, 2016 ONSC 6114

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 396/15

DATE: 20160929

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: IVY ADAMSON v. ANNE ON YEE LO

BEFORE: NORDHEIMER J.

HEARD at Toronto: written submissions

E N D O R S E M E N T

[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 25, 2016, Ms. Adamson filed a letter in response to the Notice.

[2] This proceeding largely mirrors another proceeding that I dismissed on September 27, 2016: see Adamson v. Iracleous, 2016 ONSC 6055. The nature of the relief claimed and the allegations made are very similar. However, in this case, Ms. Adamson’s complaint relates to Dr. Lo, who she says was her family doctor at one point. Ms. Adamson says that she had a medical condition regarding her right knee. Ms. Adamson complains that Dr. Lo did not help her sufficiently with respect to this medical condition.

[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 nor the Board are parties to Ms. Adamson’s application for judicial review.

[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 activities 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] As was the case in the earlier matter, 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 29, 2016