Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO: CV-20-82526 DATE: 2023/05/26 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Gary Sauve, Plaintiff AND His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Attorney General of Canada, Patrick Bendin, Agnieszka Zagorska, and Alexandre Guay, Defendants

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice C.T. Hackland

COUNSEL: Gary Sauve, in person Mathew Johnson and Christian Halt, for His Majesty the King in Right of Canada Spencer Nestico-Semianiw, for the Attorney General of Ontario

HEARD: February 2, 2023, Ottawa (by zoom videoconference)

Endorsement

[1] The Plaintiff seeks procedural relief in this motion to allow him to put forward claims, primarily against his previous employer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”), for what he alleges are harms perpetrated against him in connection with or leading to his discharge as an RCMP officer. He also seeks to re-litigate multiple proceedings in which he put forward such claims in the Federal Court of Canada.

[2] The Plaintiff’s materials are virtually incomprehensible and are not supported by any admissible evidence. He has filed a 5-paragraph affidavit saying that he is self represented, impecunious, and disabled due to injuries caused by the RCMP who have experienced lawyers and unlimited funds. The statement of claim is not before the court but the Plaintiff explains in a document he labels as “Presentation Notes”, that he wishes to challenge the veracity of evidence given by various witnesses in his multiple proceedings pursued in the Federal Court.

[3] He has previously brought in Federal Court nine actions, two applications and twelve appeals against the Federal Crown, both with and without counsel. Three of the Plaintiff’s actions proceeded to trial, including one in which he was self-represented. In 2014, Crampton C.J. of the Federal Court noted in Sauve v. Canada, 2014 FC 119 at para 4, “[t]o date, Mr. Sauve has appeared in over 50 motions, case management conferences, pre-trial conferences, and appeals before this Court and the Federal Court of Appeal… In most of those proceedings, he has represented himself.” The Plaintiff has also pursued proceedings against other Defendants.

[4] As Barnes J. explained in Sauve v. Canada, 2015 FC 66, in one of the Plaintiff’s many Federal Court proceedings, “Mr. Sauve worked for more than 18 years with the RCMP as a police officer. He was subsequently dismissed from this employment for conduct connected to the matters in issue in this proceeding. At the root of Mr. Sauve’s troubles was an allegation that he had fathered a child with a woman in Quebec. In a paternity proceeding related to that allegation, Mr. Sauve was ordered to provide a DNA sample. He refused to comply and challenged the legality of the court order on appeal. His appeal was unsuccessful and leave to further appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada was sought. It appears that Mr. Sauve was vexed by these proceedings and angry with both the complainant and her legal counsel. As a result, he wrote a letter to the Supreme Court of Canada containing explicit threats of harm to both individuals (Exhibit D5). This letter quickly came to the attention of the RCMP, and Mr. Sauve’s senior officer, Mr. Tremblay, was tasked to investigate.”

[5] It is apparent from the materials filed by the Plaintiff that in the present action what he seeks to pursue is another attack on his former employer, the RCMP and their legal counsel, and complaints about witnesses in the Federal Court proceedings being untruthful and about a lack of fairness in those proceedings. These and other matters he seeks to raise were or should have been the subject of appeals in Federal Court and events surrounding his discharge from the RCMP in 2004 are long since statute barred. In short, the continuation of the present action would be manifestly vexatious and constitute an abuse of process.

[6] The Plaintiff also asks the court to “re-instate” action CV-05-33006 and consolidate it with the present proceeding. In this 2005 action Mr. Sauve was represented by counsel and the evidence on this motion establishes the 2005 action was settled. There is no lawful basis to revive that concluded action and no affidavit evidence to support doing so.

[7] The Plaintiff also seeks state funded counsel, a fee waiver, injunctive relief and an order joining various additional Defendants to this proceeding. No affidavit evidence whatsoever is filed in support of this requested relief.

[8] For all of these reasons, the Plaintiff’s motion is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Justice Charles T. Hackland Date: May 26, 2023