Scaduto v. WSIAT, 2019 ONSC 6007
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 19-438
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: GIULIANO SCADUTO, Applicant
-and-
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, Respondent
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
READ at Toronto: October 16, 2019
ENDORSEMENT
Background
1By endorsement dated October 1, 2019, reported at 2019 ONSC 5674, the court directed the registrar to give notice to Mr. Scaduto under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, that his application for judicial review might be dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
2In this application, Mr. Scaduto seeks to have the court review a decision of the Chair of WSIAT dated July 24, 2019 refusing to assign Mr. Scaduto’s request for reconsideration of three prior decisions of the WSIAT for further review.
3In my October 1 endorsement, I explained to Mr. Scaduto that it appeared that he was trying to relitigate the three WSIAT decisions that have been finally determined in prior applications. In addition, the court expressed concern that Mr. Scaduto was seeking to claim damages in an application for judicial review. The Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to award damages in an application for judicial review.
Relitigating
4The application rejected by the Chair of WSIAT was the third time that Mr. Scaduto had requested review of the same three decisions. Each of the prior two requests had been denied and each denial was upheld on judicial review. In the most recent judicial review, the court told Mr. Scaduto expressly that “The matter is over.”
Damages
5The Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to award damages in an application for judicial review (Coote v. Assante Corporation, 2007 65613 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 16-19 (motion to vary dismissed 2007 43898 (Div. Ct.).
Mr. Scaduto’s Submissions
6Mr. Scaduto has responded with written submissions as provided under Rule 2.1. Mr. Scaduto submits that:
a. In dismissing his most recent request to review the three WSIAT decisions, the Chair of WSIAT failed to review his “new evidence” being letters written in 2019 on behalf of the federal Attorney-General and a Member of Parliament;
b. Mr. Scaduto wants to sue Legal Aid Ontario for breaching the Charter of Rights by failing to approve his request for a legal aid certificate for this application. To that end, he advises that he is prepared to move to add the Attorney-General as a party to this proceeding;
c. I should not hear this matter because I previously granted a Rule 2.1 application to dismiss a proceeding brought by Mr. Scaduto against the Law Society of Upper Canada; and
d. The Divisional Court broke the law when it abandoned his claim for psycho-traumatic disability benefits in a 2010 judicial review proceeding.
7Letters written by politicians in response to Mr. Scaduto’s complaints about injustice are not a basis to re-open a finally litigated matter. On their faces, the letters are not evidence at all about Mr. Scaduto’s three WSIAT decision.
8If Mr. Scaduto wishes to bring a legal proceeding concerning his legal aid certificate, an application for judicial review concerning the three underlying decisions of WSIAT is not the process to do so. Judicial review is a very narrow and specific process for challenging government decisions. Mr. Scaduto has not brought and is not proposing a judicial review proceeding against the decision to deny his legal aid certificate. A Charter challenge with a damages remedy, if available at all, would be brought as an action or a lawsuit in the Superior Court.
9The fact that I heard a motion in a separate case in which Mr. Scaduto was a party is not a basis to recuse me from this proceeding. Mr. Scaduto provides no basis for finding that an informed person would conclude that my mind was closed to a fair determination of this proceeding.
10Finally, if Mr. Scaduto had a complaint about the 2010 Divisional Court decision, the time and place to deal with that issue was by a motion for leave to appeal and, if granted, an appeal to the Court of Appeal in 2010. A judicial review application concerning the July, 2019 decision of the Chair of WSIAT does not allow this court to review its prior final decision.
Outcome
11In all, considering each of Mr. Scaduto’s submissions, it is apparent on the face of the material he has filed that Mr. Scaduto is trying to challenge decisions that have already been finally determined. Bringing court proceedings to re-litigate decisions that have already been finally made is an abuse of the court’s process.
12Mr. Scaduto has been told that the matter is over. He should not bring further proceedings at WSIAT or in this court to try to challenge the tribunal’s decisions Nos.: 1791/07, 1791/07R, or 1791/07R2.
13This application is therefore dismissed. The respondent may seek costs in writing if so advised. If it does so, Mr. Scaduto will be provided with an opportunity to respond in writing.
14I dispense with any need for Mr. Scaduto to approve the form or content of the formal order implementing this endorsement.
15The registrar is requested to provide notice of this decision to Mr. Scaduto and counsel for the respondent by email in addition to any service required by the Rules.
F.L. Myers J.
Date: October 17, 2019