Proctor v. Penske Truck Leasing, 2025 ONSC 2740

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00739559-0000
DATE: 2025-05-05
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Dana Proctor, Plaintiff
-and-
Penske Truck Leasing, Defendant
BEFORE: Robert Centa
COUNSEL: Dana Proctor, self-represented plaintiff
Jillian Van Allen, for the defendant
HEARD: 2025-05-05

Endorsement

[1] The registrar’s office referred this action to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request from lawyers for the defendant, under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] On February 10, 2025, I directed the registrar to give notice to Ms. Proctor that the court was considering making an order dismissing the action under rule 2.1.01. Proctor v. Penske Truck Leasing, 2025 ONSC 2563. The registrar invited Ms. Proctor to make written submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed. Ms. Proctor provided written submissions, which I have reviewed.

[3] I dismiss the action because I find it to be frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

Rule 2.1

[4] Rule 2.1.01 permits the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. In Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100, Myers J. explained:

Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the “culture shift” mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The new rule tailors appropriate procedural fairness for the category of cases involved and is an example of early resolution of civil cases that is very much in line with the goals set out in Hryniak. Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100

[5] The Court of Appeal approved of this approach. Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733

[6] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. Annotation to rule 2.1 in Ontario Superior Court Practice; Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692, para. 11. A frivolous proceeding is one that is readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success. Gill v. MacIver, 2023 ONCA 776, para. 3; Lavallee v. Isak, 2022 ONCA 290, para. 19; Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643, para. 19. A frivolous application is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail. R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, para. 67

[7] A vexatious action is one taken to annoy or embarrass the opposite party or is conducted in a vexatious manner. Gill v. MacIver, 2023 ONCA 776, para. 3; Lavallee v. Isak, 2022 ONCA 290, para. 19; Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643, para. 19; Henderson v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 89, para. 20

[8] The court is not to use rule 2.1.01 for close calls. However, neither the opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to proceedings that are clearly frivolous. Allowing such proceedings to occupy space on the court docket takes time away from other, more meritorious cases. There is simply no benefit to allowing clearly frivolous proceedings to continue. Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2023 ONSC 73, para. 26; Foley v. Victoria Hospital London Health Services Centre, 2023 ONSC 4978, para. 5

The Action is Frivolous

[9] In this action, Ms. Proctor is suing Penske Truck Leasing. It appears that Ms. Proctor’s dispute with Penske has its origin in a truck that she rented to move some personal belongings from Toronto to Edmonton in 2023. Ms. Proctor pleads that the truck broke down. In paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, Ms. Proctor sets out the causes of action she is pursuing:

This is an action by the Plaintiff, Dana Proctor in respect to intentional interference with economic interests, intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental suffering, unlawful interference, unlawful means conspiracy, economic harassment, harassment, electronic harassment, infliction of physical suffering as a result of electronic harassment, intimidation, nuisance/trespass, breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, foreign espionage on trade secrets.

[10] Ms. Proctor pleads that, in addition to Penske, there is a group that is working to cause her harm, including three federally appointed judges in Alberta. Paragraph 7 of the statement of claim reads as follows:

7. There is a group that is collectively working to harm Dana. This group includes, but is not limited to her former landlords in Edmonton David Ghermezian, Don Ghermezian, Jeff Sheckter, Rosemary Cheramy (senior leasing West Edmonton Mall) the Ghermezian Family, and their businesses that are under Triple Five and West Edmonton Mall. It also includes the landlords she reports on unfavorably such as Oxford Properties, Michael Turner (Former President of Oxford Properties), Omers, Blake Hutchinson (Chair of Omers) her other former landlord Cadillac Fairview Eaton Centre Mall (Edmonton) her residential tenancy landlords in Toronto, Wei Wang and Steven Readmon whom she leased a condo from in 2020 until she rented the Penske Truck in Toronto to move out. Her bank, CIBC that has a ruling selling her $2.2 million home for next to nothing in a foreclosure that are the fault of the landlords in the group. It also includes the 3 Edmonton court of Queen's/King's Bench judges who ruled against her denying her justice and law (Alice Woolly, John Henderson, and Douglas Mah) This group also includes the people she dealt with at Claimspro Edmonton (Shailean McGeachy, Sam Patel ) and Colleen Scott and Gregory Davis whom she dealt with at Gallagher Bassett in Canada, Sam Mizrahi who formerly owned One Bloor West, everyone who is or was on title for that property, and the lawyer Alexander JD Curry the lawyer representing Penske from Beard Winter llp. ("The group")

[11] Ms. Proctor seeks $4 million in damages and a wide range of other relief. She seeks a declaration that the defendant engaged in “intentional infliction of electronic physical pain that includes weaponized electronic torture via WI-FI and cellular devices and a full investigation into this technology.” She also seeks:

An order requiring Google - YouTube to immediately stop selected censorship of content that they don't agree with from their platform. And to immediately stop "shadow-banning" content in search results as a secretive method of censorship. This method of censorship is a well­known tactic in the YouTube community, and YouTube continues to do it, because nobody has ever challenged them in court. Restoration of all of her digital media, and accounts, emails, and intellectual property including the re purchasing of domain names that were lost during this ordeal.

[12] Ms. Proctor also asks the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to “overturn the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench case #1903-23107” in part because the judge that issued the injunction “has a personal relationship tied to the outcome of the fall of the mall – his pension among other things.”

[13] Finally, Ms. Proctor reserves her right to amend her statement of claim as follows:

President Trump, Aubrey Drake Graham, Disney and the Hudson's Bay's intelligent, respected economic advice needs to be heard by Dana and then she reserves the ability to add or remove ANYTHING from this statement of claim. there are very few intelligent voices out there on this topic as they all have been silenced by confidentiality clauses in Canada, and she deserves the right to second opinions. No woman should have to go through this.

[14] Ms. Proctor provided a ten-page, single spaced submission explaining why she believes that her action is not frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. In her covering email, Ms. Proctor indicated that she intends to sue other persons, including lawyers representing the defendant and others. In her email, Ms. Proctor states as follows:

I am entitled to access to the judicial system. Attached is my ("10 page statement") clearly showing this is not a frivolous lawsuit. The insurance company is refusing to pay me fairly, or at all, and they need to be forced to. In addition, they need to be criminally charged for their abuse of the insurance and legal system because what they are doing is illegal. Please understand that if I am denied justice and law here, I will forward this 10 page statement, as well as my 1944 page ("affidavit of Dana Proctor") that I swore in on April 15, 2025 to a list of 140 of the top lawyers in Toronto. It is my constitutional right to access the law and due process (and I've done all of the work for whoever takes my case if I am forced to do it that way).

I am not even able to upload my affidavit online to file it, as it is 2.2 GB in size and your system only accepts a maximum of 100 MB, I am attaching it to this file and I am asking that one of you take care of filing it, since I can't, and perhaps update your system to accomodate any size of attachment, as there should not be a limit in size to the amount of evidence you can file online.

I am also planning on suing the law firm Beard Winter llp, for their malpractice, Claimspro, and Gallagher Bassett for the harm that their actions caused me, as well as Gregory Davis from Gallagher Bassett, Shailean McGeachy from Claimspro, and Alexander JD Curry from Beard Winter individually for their role in dealing with this in a timely manner. I will also sue our shared landlord Oxford Properties. This will not be over if I am not granted fairness and equality in the law, again. The tone needs to be set, and it needs to be understood that I will not tolerate anymore abuse. Please force the defendant to submit a statement of defense immediately as this was just another delay causing me more harm.

[15] I have reviewed Ms. Proctor’s statement of claim, her transmittal e-mail, and her 10-page statement. I am satisfied that her action is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process for four principal reasons.

[16] First, Ms. Proctor is bringing this proceeding to try and re-determine issues that have already been determined by courts of competent jurisdiction in Alberta. Her request that the Superior Court of Justice overturn a decision of the Alberta court is frivolous in the sense that it is doomed to fail. Ms. Proctor is mounting a collateral attack on the decisions reached in Alberta, which is an abuse of process. In addition, Ms. Proctor’s unmeasured and unwarranted criticism of judges in Alberta is strong evidence that she is litigating this action in a vexatious manner. The suggestion that judges should be criminally charged for “weaponizing the judicial system” is clearly vexatious.

[17] Second, Ms. Proctor is rolling forward grounds and issues from prior proceedings to repeat and supplement them in later proceedings, including bringing (or threatening to bring) proceedings against counsel who has acted against her in prior proceedings. This is one of the hallmarks of a vexatious litigant.

[18] Third, Ms. Proctor is seeking relief that no reasonable person would expect to obtain. For example, no reasonable person would expect to obtain the relief she seeks against Google in this proceeding.

[19] Fourth, Ms. Proctor’s statement of claim contains many irrelevant facts and odd rhetorical flourishes. For example, Ms. Proctor pleads that she “suffered a second broken set of 3 ribs on the other side as she walked down yonge street on Dec 12, 2023. She did not fall. This just happened ... ya!” This is a hallmark of a frivolous and vexatious claim.

[20] Fifth, the statement of claim is marred by rambling discourse characterized by repetition and irrelevant issues.

[21] It is conceivable that Ms. Proctor could craft a narrow claim against the defendant arising from the alleged breakdown of the truck. However, the claim in this form is clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process. I dismiss the action pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1), without costs.

Robert Centa
Date: 2025-05-05