COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20061030

DOCKET: C44885

RE: Gary Sauvé (Plaintiff/Appellant) – and – Eric Gordon, Ottawa Police Services, City of Ottawa, Asfia Sultan, Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, Fannie Cotes, Samson, Cotes & Gardner, Guylaine Grenier, Lily Vallee, Le Directeur de L’Etat Civil (Attorney General of Quebec) (Defendant/Respondent)

BEFORE: WEILER, BLAIR and ROULEAU JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Gary Sauvé in person

Jean Faullem for the respondent Lily Vallee, Le Directeur de L’Etat Civil

Charles Merovitz for the respondent Fannie Cotes and Samson, Cotes & Gardner

Guylaine Grenier in person

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: October 20, 2006

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Albert Roy of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 17, 2006.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] Mr. Sauvé seeks to set aside the order of Justice Roy dated January 17, 2006 dismissing his claim as against the defendants Guylaine Grenier, Lily Vallee (Le Directeur de L’Etat Civil), and Fannie Cotes and her law firm, Samson, Cotes & Gardner. There remain a number of police, Crown attorney and public defendants in the action.

[2] Justice Roy did not dismiss the action against the respondents on the basis of the appellant’s statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action. Rather he dismissed it on the basis that the action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[3] In this respect, he had before him information outlining the long history of bad blood between Mr. Sauvé and the respondent Ms. Grenier, most of it evolving out of a paternity dispute brought against Mr. Sauvé by Ms. Grenier in the Province of Quebec and in which the Quebec Superior Court ordered that Mr. Sauvé submit to a DNA test for paternity purposes. He appealed this order unsuccessfully all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[4] In the meantime, Mr. Sauvé was charged in Ontario with uttering death threats and criminal harassment of Ms. Grenier. He was acquitted on the threatening charge but convicted on criminal harassment and given a suspended sentence and probation.

[5] The criminal proceedings appear to have been a trigger for Mr. Sauvé. He commenced this action against these respondents and a number of police and public official defendants. His claim is lengthy, verbose and difficult to understand but in summary seems to be asserting claims for malicious prosecution, negligent police investigation, defamation, false accusations and a fabrication of evidence. The allegations extend beyond Ms. Grenier to her lawyer, Ms. Cotes, beyond Ms. Cotes to her law firm, Samson, Cotes & Gardner, and (in two other actions that have been commenced parallely) beyond her lawyer’s law firm to the lawyers now representing Ms. Grenier in Quebec and the lawyer in the more recent proceedings in Ontario.

[6] We see no basis for interfering with the motion judge’s decision for the following reasons.

[7] First, it is clear that Mr. Sauvé’s action cannot succeed as against Le Directeur de L’Etat Civil. Le Directeur does nothing but register changes in names and orders when directed to do so. The fact that her name appears on certain documents in Quebec proceedings, which is Mr. Sauvé’s sole basis for claiming against her, is not enough to ground a claim.

[8] Secondly, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Ms. Cotes, and therefore her law firm, has done anything other than act in her capacity as Ms. Grenier’s counsel and file materials and make submissions in court on her behalf. There is a distinction between a lawyer and her client and, in the circumstances of this case, having regard to the record before the motions judge, we cannot conclude that his decision to dismiss the action against Ms. Cotes and the law firm was erroneous.

[9] Thirdly, while there might otherwise have been a basis for keeping Ms. Grenier in the action in view of its continuing against the other defendants, we are satisfied that Justice Roy made no reviewable error in concluding that the action was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process in the circumstances. He considered and applied the criteria set out in that regard by this court Currie v. Halton (Region) Police Service Board, [2000] O.J. No. 4516 (C.A.) and applied them to the circumstances before him not only with respect to Ms. Cotes and her law firm, and the Directeur, but also with respect to Ms. Grenier.

[10] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[11] Costs to Ms. Cotes and the law firm fixed at $11,000 and to Lily Vallee, Le Directeur de L’Etat Civil, fixed at $8,000, all inclusive of disbursements and GST and payable by the appellant. Ms. Grenier did not seek costs.

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”