Court File and Parties
CITATION: Godoy v. Godoy, 2022 ONSC 1376
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: TBA
(Oshawa)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Godoy v. Godoy
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Mr. Godoy, self-represented Appellant
In writing, In Chambers: March 1, 2022
ENDORSEMENT
1Following an exchange of emails between Mr Godoy and court staff in mid-2020, by endorsement dated September 8, 2020 (2020 ONSC 5351), I directed that notice be given to Mr Godoy pursuant to R.2.1 on the following basis:
2The Registrar shall give notice to Mr Godoy that this court is considering dismissing his appeals as frivolous, vexatious and abuses of process pursuant to R.2.1.01, for the following reasons:
(a) The order dismissing Mr Godoy’s proceeding has been set aside by the judge who made the order. Thus, there remains no order for him to appeal.
(b) The appeal of the order setting aside the dismissal order is frivolous: it does no more than set aside the order of which the plaintiff was complaining in the first appeal and remit the matter to another judge.
3In addition, the plaintiff shall also respond to this court’s general concern that he is behaving vexatiously. He has purported to commence an action against a Superior Court judge in respect to claims covered by absolute privilege, he is persisting in apparently unnecessary and frivolous appeals, and he is responding to the court’s efforts to assist him with abusive communications to the court. The plaintiff shall explain why he should not be precluded from further access to the courts respecting these matters except with prior permission from the court to control his vexatious behaviour.
4The plaintiff shall have fifteen days to respond to the notice pursuant to R.2.1.01. Adverse parties shall be copied on the R.2.1.01 notice, the plaintiff shall provide them with copies of his response to the notice, but they shall not provide responding submissions unless subsequently requested by this court.
2Mr Godoy communicated with court staff twice following the notice. On September 17, 2020, Mr Godoy sent the court a copy of a Notice of Discontinuance evidencing his termination of the underlying proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice. On September 28, 2020, Mr Godoy wrote to the court, by email, as follows:
(1) Not a problem. You can apply r 2.1.01 to my two appeals.
(2) I will pursue your Orders (one, set aside, the second valid)
(3) Therefore, I will wait for the new Judge to clarify the Motions.
(4) R 2.1 for Godoy v Woodley. No comment.
(5) Date of response interfered by health inconvenient (I was hospitalized at Oshawa Lakeridge and Toronto General between 7-Sep-2020 and 22-Sep-2020)
3That appeared to end the matter. Through administrative inadvertence the formal dismissal order was never issued, but in light of Mr Godoy’s responses and his subsequent silence it seems clear he understood that the court had dismissed his appeal on the basis set out in the R.2.1 notice.
4Then, by email dated February 26, 2022, the court received a lengthy email from Mr Godoy that can only be described as disturbing. It is not clear why this email was sent to Divisional Court or what it is Mr Godoy is now seeking from this court.
5To be clear to Mr Godoy, if he is unhappy with this court’s decision to dismiss his appeal pursuant to R.2.1, his remedy is a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Since the formal dismissal order was not issued and sent to Mr Godoy in September 2020, as it should have been, I direct that this be done now. This means that Mr Godoy’s deadline to pursue appeal proceedings in the Court of Appeal begins now – he may still pursue that if he wishes to do so.
6Mr Godoy’s email of February 26th is well beyond the limit of permissible communications with the court. For an ordinary litigant, such conduct would lead to a show cause hearing for a possible finding of contempt of court. It is clear, however, that Mr Godoy suffers from mental health issues, some of which he describes in his communication of February 26th. The court sees little point in requiring Mr Godoy to answer a contempt charge when it is clear what the answer would be, and the court would not wish to compound Mr Godoy’s suffering unnecessarily. However, court staff are entitled to be protected from this kind of abusive communication.
7As a term of the R.2.1 order, it is directed that any communication to Divisional Court received from Mr Godoy be directed to an administrative judge of the Divisional Court. If Mr Godoy continues a pattern of abusive correspondence, the court may find that it has no choice but to cite Mr Godoy for contempt and then devise some means to insure he exercises reasonable self-control in future and/or restrict his access to the court.
8Finally, the court suggests to Mr Godoy that he show a copy of his communication of February 26th and a copy of this endorsement to his treating physicians so that they may be able to offer him some assistance. The February 26th email is unacceptable, but it would be better addressed by doctors and treatment than by courts and punishment.
D.L. Corbett J.
Release Date: March 1, 2022