Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20220502 DOCKET: C69423

Lauwers, Nordheimer and Zarnett JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Andrew Jonathan Curnew Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Adam Gee Kin Loo, Rajah Singh Lehal, Cobalt Lawyers, Cobalt Business Counsel Professional Corporation, Jayson Wesley Thomas, Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL, Miguel Amaral, KPMG LLP, Dr. Mislav S. Pavelic, Dr. Mislav S. Pavelic Dentistry Professional Corporation, Brian Holland, and Stephanie Holland Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Joseph M. Natale, for the appellant Jayson W. Thomas and Sarah Wouters, for the respondents

Heard: April 26, 2022

On appeal from the orders of Justice Jasmine T. Akbarali of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 12, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The motion judge’s reasons were careful and complete. Her articulation of the legal principles was clear and correct. The motion judge’s discretionary jurisdiction to strike the appellant’s pleadings without leave to amend is undeniable. There are few pleadings, in our collective experience, more deserving of such treatment than these. We see no reason to repeat the motion judge’s analysis because these pleadings do not warrant the expenditure of judicial resources beyond her considerable time and effort.

[2] Counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the pleadings, which the appellant drafted himself, were unacceptable in form. He blames the respondents, whose actions, he submitted, were intended to deliberately trigger the appellant’s known PTSD. The appeal book contains amended draft pleadings that counsel asserts are proper. The motion judge considered these amended draft pleadings and found their purpose to be unclear, because the appellant asserted his intention to argue in support of his original statements of claim. She said, at para. 12:

At the outset of the hearing, I inquired whether Mr. Curnew was proposing that his fresh as amended statements of claim be used in evaluating the merits of the defendants’ motions. Mr. Curnew indicated that he did not consent to an order striking his issued statements of claim, and intended to argue that the issued statements of claim, as drafted, were appropriate. It was thus unclear what the purpose of the draft fresh as amended statements of claim was.

[3] The motion judge added, at para 39:

Mr. Curnew’s draft amended statements of claim were drafted much more appropriately, confirming that Mr. Curnew is able to produce a pleading that is not scandalous. However, in my view, in apologizing, Mr. Curnew was reacting to my comments about the impropriety of the pleadings that was evident on their face. He began his submissions on the motion indicating his intent to argue in support of the issued statements of claim. I find that his reversal on this point, and his apology, was strategic.

[4] There is nothing unreasonable in the motion judge’s assessment. Because we have found her order to be entirely warranted, we decline to consider the amended pleadings.

[5] The appeal is dismissed with costs awarded against the appellant on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $15,000, all-inclusive.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”