Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20220112 DOCKET: C69369

Rouleau, van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Wendy Sin Ming Ho Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Defendant (Respondent)

Counsel: Wendy Sin Ming Ho, acting in person Adam Mortimer, for the respondent

Heard: January 7, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from the order of Justice Frederick J. Myers of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 24, 2021, with reasons at 2021 ONSC 2249.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant alleges that she suffered significant psychological harm from harassment and criminal threats made against her while employed at an Ontario hospital between 1999 and 2000.

[2] Her efforts to obtain redress against her employer were dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to take up her case, and she obtained no satisfaction from a complaint before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

[3] The appellant then sued the Crown and the four tribunals for their failure to protect her from the alleged illegal acts of her former supervisor and employer. Firestone J. found that the tribunals were not suable entities and struck her claim against the Crown with leave to amend.

[4] The present appeal is from the motion judge’s dismissal of that amended pleading. There, the appellant argued that the Crown is responsible for her employer’s alleged harassment and threats, as well as the subsequent failure of the tribunals to support her claims, because the province is constitutionally responsible for hospitals and provincial administrative tribunals. She also claimed that these wrongs violate her security of the person and right to equal benefit of the law as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Finally, the appellant sought a declaration and an injunction requiring the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) to investigate the alleged criminal conduct on the part of her former employer.

[5] The motion judge dismissed the appellant’s action because her pleading could not possibly result in a judgment against the Crown. The motion judge explained that the Crown is not vicariously liable for the employment related issues of public hospitals, nor is it liable for the quasi-judicial decisions of administrative tribunals. He also determined that the alleged Charter breaches were no more than the appellant disagreeing with the outcome of the tribunal proceedings. Finally, the motion judge found no basis for a court exercising civil jurisdiction to make a declaratory order compelling a criminal investigation by the RCMP.

[6] Before this court, the appellant has sought to reframe the arguments she made below. She suggests there has been a fraud on the court, and that the court must protect her rights and prevent abuses of authority. In addition, she criticizes the way she has been treated by the legal system, including the fact that she has not been provided with appropriate assistance to advance her claim.

[7] The appellant has also brought a motion seeking leave to file fresh evidence. That fresh evidence consists principally of material related to her dispute with her previous employer, as well as her request for a declaratory order compelling the RCMP to carry out an investigation.

[8] In our view, the appellant has not demonstrated any error on the part of the motion judge. Her arguments, although reframed, are, in effect, the same as were made before the motion judge. There is simply no viable cause of action pleaded against the Crown. As for the fresh evidence, it does not, in our view, assist her in making out a potential claim.

[9] For these reasons, the motion to file fresh evidence and the appeal are dismissed. Costs to the respondent are fixed in the amount of $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”