CITATION: Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2019 ONSC 2839
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 096/19
DATE: 20190506
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
SILVANO LOCHNER
Mr Lochner, self-represented
Applicant
- and -
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE
Matthew Peachey, for the respondent
COMMISSION
Respondent
Heard in Writing at Toronto: May 3, 2019
DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] The Respondent Commission requests an order dismissing this application pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) and (6) on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. It argues that the issues raised in the application were decided in Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2019 ONSC 458 (the “Prior Decision”).
[2] Notice was given to Mr Lochner that the court is considering an order under R.2.1 on April 8, 2019. Mr Lochner responded with written submissions filed April 15, 2019.
[3] Mr Lochner’s argument is that the Prior Decision only dealt with the Commission’s decision of August 27, 2018. Mr Lochner argues that a previous decision from the Commission to the same effect on November 16, 2017 was not disposed of by the Prior Decision.
[4] It is axiomatic that a litigant is required to raise all related issues when bringing a matter to court. If Mr Lochner believed that the Commission’s 2017 decision entitled him to relief, he was bound to raise that at the same time that he challenged the Commission’s 2018 decision. Both decisions concern the same incident: whether there ought to be a review of police conduct relating to tasering of Mr Lochner’s brother by Toronto police in 2006.
[5] In addition, it appears that Mr Lochner has started yet another proceeding in Divisional Court against the respondent, on May 3, 2019. Mr Lochner has had the benefit of fee waivers to commence his applications without paying the usual court fee. It appears that Mr Lochner is using this beneficent dispensation, not to advance the cause of social justice by facilitating access to justice for the poor, but to abuse the court system at no cost to himself. The effect, of course, is to consume scarce court resources, depriving other litigants of timely access to the courts, and imposing a cost on the taxpayers to underwrite Mr Lochner’s vexatious conduct.
[6] Finally, I understand that Mr Lochner has been sending emails directly to judges about these matters, something which is contrary to the Rules and which is grossly improper.
[7] The application is dismissed without costs.
[8] Other members of Mr Lochner’s family have been declared vexatious litigants as a result of their vexatious pursuit of litigation in respect to the same matters. There is no application before the court to declare Mr Lochner vexatious. Nonetheless the court is entitled to protect its own process from abuse.
[9] Mr Lochner shall appear before this court, sitting as a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, on May 15, 2019, 10:00 am, to show cause why the following order should not be made against him:
a. That he be prohibited from commencing any proceeding in the courts of Ontario against the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, or any proceeding in which he seeks relief in relation to the police incident in 2006 involving his brother, without first obtaining permission from a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court.
b. To seek permission, Mr Lochner shall provide the court with a letter of no more than eight pages in length explaining:
i. why his proposed proceeding has potential merit;
ii. why the proposed proceeding is reasonable procedurally; and
iii. whether he has paid all outstanding costs orders against him, and if not, advising of all such orders and the amounts owed on them.
c. Dismissing his latest application against the respondent (File 234/19) pursuant to Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
d. Ordering that Mr Lochner not apply for or receive a fee waiver for any proceedings or any steps in any proceedings in Ontario without first obtaining permission from a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court. To obtain such a fee waiver, Mr Lochner shall provide the court with an affidavit (a) establishing that his financial circumstances justify granting a fee waiver; and (b) showing that it is in the interests of justice that he be granted a fee waiver, given his history of vexatious litigation.
e. Ordering Mr Lochner (a) not to communicate directly by email with any judge; and (b) not to otherwise communicate with a judge outside the courtroom except (i) to seek permission to bring a proceeding or a step in a proceeding, or (ii) to seek a fee waiver; or (iii) with the express prior written permission of the judge.
[10] Pending decision on the matters to be addressed in court on May 15, 2019, Mr Lochner is prohibited from commencing any proceeding or taking any step in any proceeding in Ontario without prior permission from D.L. Corbett J.
[11] The respondent’s attendance on May 15^th^ is optional.
D.L. Corbett J.
Released: May 6, 2019
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 096/19
DATE: 20190506
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
SILVANO LOCHNER
Applicant
- and -
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Released: May 6, 2019