Court File and Parties

Citation: Scaduto v. WSIAT, 2019 ONSC 5674 Divisional Court File No.: 19-438 Date: 2019-10-01 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Giuliano Scaduto, Applicant -and- Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, Respondent

Before: F.L. Myers J. Read at Toronto: October 1, 2019

Endorsement

[1] This application was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of lawyers for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] Mr. Scaduto has commenced this proceeding to seek judicial review of the decision of the Chair of WSIAT dated July 24, 2019 refusing to assign Mr. Scaduto’s request for reconsideration for further review. Although the relief that he seeks is not specified in his notice of application, Mr. Scaduto’s factum clarifies that he wishes to challenge the tribunal’s decisions 1791/07, 1791/07R, and 1791/07R2. He seeks $101,000,000 in damages or, alternatively, an order requiring WSAIT to re-hear his appeals.

[3] Mr. Scaduto has sought to have his 2007 decisions reconsidered at least twice before. In each case the request was denied. In each case, a judicial review proceeding from the denial of the reconsideration request was dismissed. In the most recent dismissal by a panel of this court, reported at 2017 ONSC 2345, Nordheimer J. wrote:

[11] We appreciate that the applicant does not agree with the decision reached in his case. Of course, he is entitled to disagree with the Tribunal’s decision. However that does not change the fact that he has had his case heard by the Tribunal and he has exhausted all of his appeals from that decision. The matter is over.

[Emphasis added]

[4] An attempt to re-litigate a matter that has been finally determined already can be an abuse of the court’s process. Moreover, claiming $101 million damages in a judicial review application may also be considered frivolous and vexatious as this court has no jurisdiction to award damages on judicial review. In Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, the Court of Appeal found that Rule 2.1 authorizes the court to dismiss as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, cases that are attempts to re-litigate matters that have previously been finally determined.

[5] It appears to me on the face of the proceedings that this may be such a case. Mr. Scaduto should therefore be given an opportunity to make submissions as to why this application should not be dismissed summarily under Rule 2.1.

[6] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the application;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, this application is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43;

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the applicant’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the applicant and counsel for the respondent by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J. Date: October 1, 2019