Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2019-05-27 Docket: C66659 Judges: Doherty, Nordheimer and Harvison Young JJ.A.
Between
William Rallis on his own behalf and that of the Estate of Fay Arlene Fuerst, B.A., LLB and Fay Fuerst B.A. LLB 1955-2013
Plaintiffs (Appellants)
and
Judge Fred Myers, Judge Corbett, Judge Epstein, Judge Glustein, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, John Morris Lawyer, Henry Ngan Lawyer, Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP, Paul Eric Veel Lawyer, Sam Johansen Lawyer, Judge Kohenen, Master Graham, Judge Firestone, Judges Administration Staff, Judge Glustein's Assistant Staff, Ms. Roxanne Johnson, Court Registrar Staff, Mr. Bosco, Joe Di Peatro, Chris de Gregorio, Court Registrar Staff, Court Police Staff, Judge Nakatsuru, Toronto Police Services, Richard Parker QC Lawyer, The Law Society of Ontario and anyone else that may come up
Defendants/Moving Parties (Respondents)
Counsel
William Rallis, in person
Daniel Mayer, for the moving parties and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario
Heard: in writing
On Appeal
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Mark Edwards of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 8, 2019.
Reasons for Decision
[1] The motion judge dismissed the appellants' action, against the named judicial officials and the named court staff defendants, under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as being frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The appellants have filed an appeal from the motion judge's decision. The moving parties now seek an order under r. 2.1.01 dismissing the appeal.
[2] We have reviewed the written submissions filed by the moving parties and those filed by Mr. Rallis.
[3] In our view, this appeal should be summarily dismissed as it is, on its face, frivolous, this is to say, it is completely devoid of merit. While the statement of claim does not easily allow for the nature of the claim to be determined, it appears to largely be a complaint about alleged efforts by various persons to obstruct Mr. Rallis from proceeding with an entirely separate and earlier claim that he commenced.
[4] The motion judge correctly concluded that there is no cause of action against the judges who are named in the statement of claim because they enjoy judicial immunity. There is similarly no claim against the various court staff who are named because of the provisions of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.27, s. 5(6).
[5] We would also observe that the statement of claim in this case bears many of the hallmarks of vexatious litigation that are set out in Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497, 61 C.P.C. (7th) 153. In addition, with the exception of the damages claim, none of the relief sought in the statement of claim is appropriately sought through an action. It is all procedural in nature.
[6] For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
"Doherty J.A." "I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A." "Harvison Young J.A."