CITATION: Rivette v. Children’s Aid Society of Windsor and Essex County, 2020 ONSC 4973
TEMPORARY DIV. CT. COURT FILE NO.: CVD-LON-61-20JR
DATE: 20200819
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO
RE: Rivette v. Children’s Aid Society of Windsor and Essex County
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
DATE: August 19, 2020
IN CHAMBERS IN WRITING
Endorsement
[1] Pursuant to R.2.1.01, the court may dismiss an application that is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The Registrar is directed to give notice to Mr Rivette that the court is considering dismissing most of his application pursuant to R.2.1.01 for the reasons set out in this endorsement.
[2] Mr Rivette has sought to commence proceedings in this court and has requested an urgent case management teleconference to schedule an appearance for a motion to “dismiss the defence” of his opponents. He states that his case is an “emergency”.
[3] Mr Rivette is self-represented. He also advises that he has multiple disabilities, some of which make it difficult for him to communicate in writing. The court has an obligation to try to assist self-represented persons and to accommodate persons with disabilities to the point of undue hardship.
[4] The court directed Mr Rivette to provide a notice of application or a notice of appeal identifying the decisions that Mr Rivette wants this court to review. Mr Rivette provided the court with both a notice of appeal and a notice of application, explaining that he was unsure of which form to use, not being a lawyer. The complaints set out in the two forms are identical.
[5] The remedy Mr Rivette seeks in his notices is an order “dismissing the defence”. It is not stated whose defence. It is not stated in which proceeding this defence is asserted. In any event, this court has no jurisdiction to “dismiss a defence” in a case proceeding in another court.
[6] All of this said, from the materials Mr Rivette has provided, it is apparent that he is concerned about (a) a decision of the CAS about whether he should be eligible to adopt children, (b) proceedings he has brought (apparently against the CAS) in the Small Claims Court in Windsor, (c) conduct of staff and perhaps a judge of the Small Claims Court, (d) conduct at the Superior Court of Justice in Windsor, (e) perhaps issues respecting a complaint he made to the Human Rights Tribunal about some of these matters and responses provided to that complaint, and (f) it seems he wishes a Family Court Judge to decide his request to be able to adopt a child. There are other issues raised in the materials, including unparticularized allegations of criminality by staff of the Small Claims Court and by a large law firm and one of its associates.
[7] It is the task of a lawyer to absorb the factual matrix of a litigant’s complaints and to organize those complaints into coherent legal claims. Where a party is unrepresented and is unable to undertake this task himself, the court will try to assist by directing the litigant to the requirements of a properly pleaded case. However, it is not the task of the court to absorb a mass of evidence and convert it into legal claim(s) – that would cross the line and put the court in the position of being an advocate for a self-represented litigant. Further, it is not the task of the court, in our system of justice, to investigate complaints.
[8] With these principles in mind, by endorsement dated August 17, 2020, the court directed Mr Rivette to identify the decision(s) he seeks to review in this court. In response, he identified a decision from CAS, and he complained that he could not get a decision from the Small Claims Court because that court will not schedule the rest of his case. He also stated that the information that this court requires is within the materials he has sent us already. The court then repeated its requests for a clear list of the decision(s) Mr Rivette is asking this court to review and tried to explain why this is important.
[9] Based on Mr Rivette’s response, it is still not clear what decision(s) Mr Rivette wants this court to review:
(a) Mr Rivette references a decision of the CAS dated December 12, 2020, “denying adoption”, however Mr Rivette advises that he “is not asking for adoption” but asking that the issue of adoption be transferred “to Family court to a judge of good standing to make that decision.” This court has no jurisdiction to transfer decision-making authority from the CAS to a Family Court judge.
(b) Mr Rivette advises that he went to the Child and Family Services Review Board in Toronto. He does not reference any decision of that Board that he wants this court to review.
(c) Mr Rivette advises that he decided to sue CAS “once the lie was told to the Child and Family Services Board”. Mr Rivette does not identify the claim he has against the CAS, though from the materials filed it seems that this is a Small Claims Court claim brought in Windsor identified by Mr Rivette as file SC20-62857.
(d) Mr Rivette advises that Small Claims Court court staff are preventing access to the courthouse to have a settlement conference and as a result his Small Claims Court case is not proceeding. The court takes judicial notice that ordinary court operations in Ontario have been suspended since March 2020 as a result of COVID-19. Some limited operations have reopened over the summer. The court does not know and cannot take judicial notice of the current situation in the Small Claims Court in Windsor. Mr Rivette does not explain why or how he has been prevented from accessing the courthouse or proceeding with his case. It is not clear whether (i) this decision is one of general practice during COVID-19, (ii) whether it is specifically directed at Mr Rivette, (iii) who made the decision, or even (iv) what the decision includes (for example, whether Mr Rivette has been told that his case will never proceed, or when he has been told it may proceed, etc.).
(e) Mr Rivette advises that he made a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal about the conduct of a court official and an associate lawyer at a large law firm. Those complaints were dismissed on the basis of judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and on the basis of that dismissal, Mr Rivette complains that the court official and the lawyer have broken the law by impersonating a judge and a Crown Attorney. Mr Rivette does not appear to seek to challenge the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal in this court, but rather to obtain some sanction against the lawyer and the court official. This court has no jurisdiction over such a claim.
(f) Mr Rivette also asks for an order that the Small Claims Court book a settlement conference in his case as an alternative to his request that the “defence be dismissed”.
(g) Mr Rivette makes generalized allegations of “fraud” and criminality in connection with his treatment by court staff and opposing counsel and argues that Divisional Court has jurisdiction because “crime was committed in Windsor and Toronto”. This court has no jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions.
[10] Of all of these points, the only one that would seem to ground potential jurisdiction in this court is a refusal of the Small Claims Court to schedule a settlement conference in Mr Rivette’s case. This court could have the jurisdiction to order the Small Claims Court to proceed with a case. However, given the current COVID-19 situation, of which this court may take judicial notice, it is not at all clear that ongoing delays in Mr Rivette’s case are a consequence of the suspension of ordinary court operations or some other decision.
[11] The Registrar is directed to give Mr Rivette notice that the court is considering ordering that his application be dismissed respecting all of his complaints other than his complaint that the Small Claims Court has failed or refused to schedule a settlement conference in SC20-62857. Mr Rivette will have fifteen days from the notice to respond to it, after which the court will decide that issue. In his response, Mr Rivette should explain what it is he is asking this court to do (other than ordering the Small Claims Court action move forward), and why he says that this court has jurisdiction.
[12] In respect to the complaint about not scheduling a settlement conference in the Small Claims Court, Mr Rivette is directed to provide more particulars about this complaint, including, to the extent known to him:
(a) What the decision was (refusing to schedule a settlement conference until some time in future, adjourning a previously scheduled event, refusing to receive a scheduling request, etc.);
(b) Who made the decision;
(c) When this decision was made;
(d) How this decision was communicated to him;
(e) The substance of the decision (whether it is a COVID-19 delay or whether some other reason has been given to him for not scheduling the settlement conference);
(f) A copy of the decision (if it has been provided to Mr Rivette in writing).
[13] Finally, Mr Rivette has told this court that he will take this case to a higher court and / or to the Canadian Judicial Council if he is not satisfied with the way in which this matter is handled in this court. Mr Rivette has the right to pursue appeal rights and of course can make a complaint to the Judicial Council if he wishes to do so. However, it is improper for him to raise those issues with this court. I know that Mr Rivette is not legally trained and may not understand this, but making such statements is a form of attempted intimidation of a court and is improper, not to mention rude. Mr Rivette can appeal or complain as he sees fit but he is directed not to threaten to do those things to this court again.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: August 19, 2020