Haeck v. Ministry of Transportation (Ontario), 2020 ONSC 6816
CITATION: Haeck v. Ministry of Transportation (Ontario), 2020 ONSC 6816
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 512/20
DATE: 2020-11-06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Kimberley Haeck
Applicant
- and -
Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)
Respondent
Ms Haeck, self-represented
No one appearing for the Respondent
Read at Toronto: November 6, 2020
In Chambers, In Writing
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.:
[1] The applicant brings an application for judicial review of “The Ontario Ministry Transportation bill of $600 of unpaid parking tickets on September 28, 2020.”
[2] The applicant states that her application is brought pursuant to R.14.05(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ss.2(1) and 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.
[3] The sole stated grounds for the application are as follows: “Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
[4] On its face this notice of application fails to disclose a claim within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.
[5] The Registrar of the Divisional Court was directed to give notice to Ms Haeck pursuant to R.2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that the court was considering dismissing her application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
[6] The court had one other concern with Ms Haeck’s application. It was transmitted to the court by email from Ms Haeck’s spouse, Anthony Hicks. The form of the Notice of Application bore a close resemblance to other applications recently sent to the court by Mr Hicks on his own behalf.
[7] In a letter attaching her Notice of Application, Ms Haeck explains her claim as follows:
I believe this debt is a fabrication that arises from government harassment of my husband reporting the death of Kelly Morisseau and her unborn child which is linked to the MMIWGI and to government and judicial corruption.
No facts are set out to support this bizarre allegation.
[8] Mr Hicks has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of Justice and has had one proceeding stayed in this court because it was brought in breach of the order declaring him vexatious. Mr Hicks also has been found guilty of contempt of court and there is currently a bench warrant out for Mr Hicks’ arrest to bring him before the court for sentencing.
[9] In all of these circumstances, this court directed the applicant as follows:
Justice Corbett has directed me to advise you as follows:
The court has received a notice of application on behalf of Kimberley Haeck. It is in the form of an application for judicial review respecting $600 in unpaid parking tickets. It lists the Ministry of Transportation as the respondent.
The Registrar is directed to give notice to Ms Haeck that the court is considering dismissing her application as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01, for the following reasons:
A. Merits of the Application
Parking infractions are generally levied by municipalities and are subject to adjudication before local courts presided over by Justices of the Peace. Appeals from decisions of those courts lies to the Ontario Court of Justice. Fines, once adjudicated by the courts, are payable, and if they are not paid may lead to certain actions being taken by the Ministry of Transportation, such as refusing to renew a driver's license unless unpaid fines are paid. The Ministry does not issue the parking ticket or adjudicate the issue of whether the infraction took place. There is nothing stated in the Notice of Application to indicate what action or decision taken by the Ministry is reviewable in the Divisional Court, or what basis is invoked for such a review. A bald allegation of a breach of s.7 of the Charter does not state a basis for an application in Divisional Court in these circumstances.
The Divisional Court will not hear an application for judicial review in respect to an issue properly addressed in a trial court or on appeal in an appellate court with jurisdiction over the matter. The issue of whether a parking infraction has occurred, and if it has, the appropriate penalty, are all matters to be adjudicated elsewhere.
This application appears to be doomed to failure because it is in the wrong court and does not state an arguable case against the Ministry of Transportation, and thus appears to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process within the meaning of Rule 2.1.01.
The applicant, in her notice of application, has failed to state any facts that could establish a basis for an application within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.
The application is so devoid of material detail as to fail to disclose a justiciable issue in any court.
B. Self-Representation in the Divisional Court During COVID-19
A party may be self-represented or may be represented by counsel in the Divisional Court. A party may not be represented by an agent in the Divisional Court without leave from the court, and no such leave has been sought in this case. Further, Anthony Hicks, who identifies himself as the spouse of Ms Haeck, and who has transmitted the notice of application to this court on behalf of Ms Haeck, has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of Justice, and will not, for that reason, be permitted to act as an agent for anyone in a court proceeding in Ontario without first obtaining permission from a judge to so do.
To proceed with this application, Ms Haeck is required to provide her own email address to the court so that the court may communicate with her directly as needed. If Ms Haeck does not wish to be self-represented in this application then she may retain counsel to act on her behalf.
The applicant shall have fifteen days to respond to the concerns set out in this direction, and shall do so within the page limit set out in the Registrar's notice. The respondent Ministry shall not respond to submissions provided by Ms Haeck unless the court subsequently directs otherwise.
[10] Ms Haeck responded to the notice from the court by email from an email address in her own name, and the email itself states on its face that it is from Ms Haeck. For the purpose of this endorsement, I accept at face value that the response is from Ms Haeck and thus that the second concern identified by the court has been addressed satisfactorily.
[11] The substance of Ms Haeck’s response to the notice pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not, however, provide a basis for this application to continue. Ms Haeck’s response is as follows:
Regarding my application for a judicial review of fines stated to be owed to the Ministry of Transportation which I do not owe totalling $630; by the Ministry of Transportation is my civil right anyone who is denying me of that civil right is in violation of my constitutional rights. These are hard times; $600 makes a difference to me. I am pregnant with my first child. How has someone who has never filed any action in a court be a vexatious litigant? This is a form of harassment and I request a new judge to reside (sic) over my application.
[12] This court understands that $600 is a lot of money, and that it would be distressing to be faced with a demand for payment of more than $600 in parking fines. However, these concerns do not provide a basis for a case in the Divisional Court. If Ms Haeck disagrees with the amount claimed from her, she may contest the underlying fines in the courts that levied those fines (presumably traffic courts in Ottawa), she may contest the amounts with the Ministry itself to obtain an explanation as to how the amounts were calculated, and she may pursue internal review processes within the Ministry if she feels there has been some mistake made in the statement of fines owing. Ms Haeck must follow the processes available to her to contest the fines and the collection of the fines, and she must follow the appeal and review procedures that are available to contest those issues beyond the decision of the traffic court. She may not come straight to Divisional Court, by-passing all of the administrative and judicial processes established for parking infractions, because she receives a statement of account from the Ministry with which she disagrees.
[13] This court accepts that the matter may be serious for Ms Haeck, and this court has no understanding, one way or the other, of the underlying merits of Ms Haeck’s concerns about the claimed fines. On its face, Ms Haeck is in the wrong court and the application must be dismissed pursuant to R.2.1.01.
[14] Second, Ms Haeck should understand that this is not a finding from this court that she is a vexatious litigant. Ms Haeck’s spouse, Mr Hicks, has been declared a vexatious litigant. That is a serious matter, and it precludes her spouse from recourse to the courts without prior permission from a judge. This court is not making a finding that Ms Haeck is a vexatious litigant – nor was this an issue before this court. The question for this court is not whether Ms Haeck, as a person, is a vexatious litigant, but whether her application against the Ministry of Transportation is a vexatious proceeding. There is a big difference.
[15] Bringing one vexatious proceeding does not, as a rule, make someone a vexatious litigant. Self-represented people are not faulted if they do not know what court they should bring their case in or how their case should be put before the court. However, when a litigant brings a case in the wrong court, the case is “vexatious” because it cannot succeed in front of the court in which it was brought. That does not mean that the whole case was without merit or that the applicant has done something terribly wrong. It could mean that the applicant just made a mistake about which court to go to and how to go about having her concerns addressed.
[16] Ms Haeck has brought her case in the wrong court. If she contests her parking tickets, she needs to go back to the court that found her guilty of those infractions, or she needs to try to bring appeals from those decisions. If she says that the Ministry of Transportation has wrong information or is mistaken about what she owes for parking tickets, she needs to take that up through the Ministry’s internal processes.
[17] Finally, on the issue of harassment, a government or judicial conspiracy against Ms Haeck’s spouse, and her request for a new judge for this case: there is simply no substance to any of these points.
[18] For all of these reasons the application is dismissed, without prejudice to any steps Ms Haeck may take before an appropriate court to challenge her parking tickets, or with the Ministry through the Ministry’s administrative processes to challenge the accounting for parking tickets for which she has been found liable by the courts.
[19] There shall be no order as to costs of the application.
D.L. Corbett J.
Released: November 6, 2020