Court File and Parties
Divisional Court File No.: 064/21
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Divisional Court
Re: Marie Graff v. Dr. Beverly Anne Jackson and Taddle Creek Family Health Team; Marie Graff v. Andrew Porter, Lenczner Slaght, Dr. Paula B. Williams Professional Corporation
Before: D.L. Corbett J.
Counsel: Ms Graff, self-represented
Heard: In Chambers, In Writing
Endorsement
[1]
Background
Ms Graff appeals the decision of Schabas J. dismissing her claims pursuant to R.2.1.01.
2Upon reviewing the decision of Schabas J. and the notice of appeal, this court directed the registrar to give notice pursuant to R.2.1.01 that the court is considering dismissing her appeal as frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process. The reason for giving this direction was explained to Ms Graff by email as follows:
Justice Corbett directs me to advise you as follows:
The Registrar is directed to give notice to the appellant that the court is considering dismissing or staying this appeal as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to R.2.1.01, for the following reasons:
The principle of finality provides that the decision of Favreau J. authoritatively disposes of all issues that were raised in or should have been raised in that proceeding.
The issues the plaintiff seeks to raise in the current proceeding appear to have been decided by Favreau J., and in any event were issues that ought to have been raised in the proceeding before Favreau J.
The notice of appeal is prolix and unfocused and fails to state a ground of appeal from the decision of Schabas J.
The underlying claim, dismissed by Schabas J., appears to be part of an ongoing pattern of vexatious litigation.
In addition, the appellant should also address the following question in response to the R.2.1.01 notice from the Registrar:
The plaintiff's conduct in the prior litigation and in the current litigation appears to show a pattern of vexatious conduct that should lead the court to impose restrictions on the appellant in respect to future litigation involving the defendants in this action and in respect to the issues raised in the litigation.
Responding parties are directed not to respond to the court's notice pursuant to R.2.1.01, or to the submissions provided by the appellant in response to the notice under R.2.1.01, unless the court subsequently directs otherwise.
[3]
Issues
Ms Graff responded, raising five issues:
(1) Whether claims against Jackson that did not pertain to alleged fraud in connection with the permission form, ought to have been dismissed.
(2) Whether there are arguable grounds against all parties respecting alleged collusion to create and submit a fraudulent document (the permission form).
(3) Whether damages resulted from the alleged fraud or collusion.
(4) Whether Schabas J. should have stayed these proceedings pending the outcome of Ms Graff’s application to the Supreme Court of Canada.
(5) Whether Ms Graff is a vexatious litigant.
[4]
Analysis
Ms Graff is litigating vexatiously. This is clear from the decision of Favreau J. (2017 ONSC 7451), from the Court of Appeal (2020 ONCA 319), from the pleadings in this case, and from the reasons below of Schabas J. (2020 ONSC 8172).
5In respect to the five arguments made by Ms Graff in response to the R.2.1.01 notice:
(a) Litigation is not to be undertaken by instalment. The decision of Favreau J. disposed of all the claims made or which should have been made in the proceeding before her. Ms Graff sued her family doctor for alleged unprofessional tampering with her medical file. Ms Graff cannot commence a separate lawsuit against the doctor for each alleged document in the file that has allegedly been tampered with. She must come forward with all her allegations so that the entire dispute may be decided in one proceeding. See Peoples Trust Company v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58, paras. 45-46; Upper v. Upper, 1932 111 (ON CA), [1933] OR 1