Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2018-08-31 Docket: C65168 Judges: Lauwers, Miller and Nordheimer JJ.A.
Between
John Paul Riga Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Gateway Casino Sault Ste. Marie, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Sault Ste. Marie Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of Ontario, Liberal Party of Canada, Ontario Liberal Party, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Any and/or all of the above ownerships, holdings, subsidiaries, employees, customers – direct or indirect – aka unknown companies (numbered companies, etc.), Jane Doe(s) and John Doe(s) et al. Defendants (Respondents)
Counsel
John Paul Riga, in person
Paul Johnston, for Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
Laura Bevan, for Gateway Casino Sault Ste. Marie
Walter Ojok, for Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Ontario Provincial Police and Premier of Ontario
Orlando Rosa, for Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie and Sault Ste. Marie Police Service
Adrian Johnston, for Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Prime Minister of Canada
Jack Siegel, for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party
Malcom Mercer, for McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Heard: In writing
On Appeal
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Edward Gareau of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 27, 2018, with reasons reported at 2018 ONSC 1339
Reasons for Decision
[1] The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal from the judgment of the motion judge who dismissed the plaintiff's action under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 on the ground that it was frivolous and vexatious. The respondents now seek to have the appeal dismissed on the same basis pursuant to the same rule.
[2] In reaching his conclusion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, the motion judge said, at para. 8:
The allegations set out in the statement of claim are nonsensical. The statement of claim sets out allegations of perceived personal wrongs against the plaintiff which the defendants would have no liability in law for. In my view, the plaintiff has failed in the statement of claim to plead any material facts to disclose a cause of action against any of the defendants. To use the language set out in the jurisprudence, this is a clear case where the abusive nature of the proceedings is apparent on the face of the claim.
[3] We agree with the motion judge's conclusion respecting the underlying action. The same observation can be made with respect to the Notice of Appeal. It does not set out any grounds of appeal that demonstrate any merit. They simply amount, in essence, to a recitation of the same problematic allegations that are contained in the statement of claim.
[4] The proposed appeal is frivolous and vexatious as those terms are used in r. 2.1.01. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
"P. Lauwers J.A."
"B.W. Miller J.A."
"I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A."