Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20220518 Docket: C69262

Before: Benotto, Zarnett and Copeland JJ.A.

Between:

Attila Vinczer, Peter Vinczer and Katalin Vinczer Plaintiffs (Appellants)

And:

7084421 Canada Ltd., Gerald Anthony Van Erp a.k.a. Gerry Van Erp a.k.a. Gerald Van Erp a.k.a. Gerald Peter Anthony a.k.a. Gerald Anthony Cares a.k.a. Gerry Anthony a.k.a. Gerald Anthony a.k.a. Gerry Erp, D. John Peirce Professional Corporation, Peirce McNeely Associates, David John Albert Peirce, Robert Ainsley McNeely, 1229393 Ontario Ltd. O/A I Finance Construction, Jacqueline Hilchuk a.k.a. Jackie Hilchuk, Steven Hilchuk, James Hilchuk and Damir Vrancic Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

Attila Vinczer, acting in person Jordan Goldblatt, for the respondents D. John Peirce Professional Corporation, Peirce McNeeley Associates, David John Albert Peirce and Robert Ainsley McNeely Amandeep Sidhu, for the respondents 1229393 Ontario Ltd. and O/A I Finance Construction and Jacqueline Hilchuk, Steven Hilchuk, James Hilchuk James R. G. Cook and Eli Bordman, for the respondent Damir Vrancic

Heard: May 12, 2022

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Catriona Verner of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 10, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant seeks to set aside the motion judge’s decision to dismiss his action pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[2] Rule 2.1.01(1) provides that the court may dismiss a proceeding if it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.

[3] The underlying action arises from the enforcement of a mortgage. In a prior action, the appellant claimed the mortgage was a fraud. The motion judge in the prior action granted the mortgagee possession of the mortgaged property. An appeal to this court was dismissed.

[4] The Statement of Claim dealing with the same mortgage asserts 40 causes of action against multiple defendants. It is 300 pages. The claims include the assertion that lawyer defendants should be disbarred.

[5] While an action should not be dismissed under r. 2.1 if it is a “close call”, this is not a close call. The validity of the mortgage has already been decided. The appellant admitted that some claims against the defendants in his Statement of Claim should not have been made. The action plainly bears the hallmarks of one that is vexatious and an abuse of process; see Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733; and Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720.

[6] We see no reason to interfere with the motion judge’s discretionary decision.

[7] The appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,000 all inclusive, payable to each set of respondents.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”

“J. Copeland J.A.”