Court File and Parties
CITATION: Mitchell v. Law Society of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 5370
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 205/21
DATE: 20210804
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Mitchell v. LAW SOCIETRY OF ONTARIO AND DOUGLas
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Richard Steve Mitchell. self-represented
HEARD: In Chambers, In Writing
Endorsement
[1] By my direction a R.2.1.01 notice was provided to Mr Mitchell. The following explanation was given for the R.2.1.01 notice:
Justice Corbett directs me to advise you as follows:
This court directs the Registrar to issue a notice pursuant to R.2.1.01 to the appellant for the following reasons:
The appellant has sued a lawyer and the Law Society of Ontario for damages in the Superior Court of Justice. The lawyer acted for an opposing party in seeking to have a default judgment obtained by the appellant against her client set aside, and for an order for costs. The Law Society of Ontario declined to investigate a complaint against the lawyer on the basis that a complaint from the appellant failed to describe an arguable breach of professional standards by the lawyer.
Woodley J. of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appellant's claim pursuant to R.2.1.01 for very brief handwritten reasons. Her Honour found that there was no tenable claim pleaded against the opposing lawyer, who owed no duty to the appellant. Her Honour found that there is no claim for damages against the Law Society, as a professional regulator, for rendering an adverse complaints disposition declining to investigate a complaint further.
It appears that the claim, as against the lawyer, is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process on its face: no legal duty is pleaded and it appears that none exists. Further, the claim appears to be a collateral attack on an authoritative decision of the court to set aside a default judgment and to make a costs order. This appears to be the most obvious kind of follow-on litigation that is inherently an abuse of process.
The claim, as against the Law Society of Ontario, appears to be bad in law. A complainant who disagrees with a complaints disposition of the Law Society may pursue internal appeals or reviews at the Law Society. If those appeals or reviews are unsuccessful, the complainant may have recourse to this court by way of appeal or application for judicial review. No legal basis for a claim for damages is pleaded and it appears that none exists.
Although the Notice of Appeal is dated January 6, 2021, there is no evidence that it was served on that date and nothing to indicate that the appellant filed the document before sending it by email to the Divisional Court on March 11, 2021. The deadline for bringing the appeal was thirty days from the date of the decision of Woodley J., December 7, 2020. "Bringing the appeal" means serving it on the responding parties and filing it with the court. During COVID, the court generally accepts service by email and does accept email to the court with proof of service and a copy of the Notice of Appeal to be sufficient. The appellant is asked to explain how it is that he says that he met the thirty-day deadline for commencing this appeal.
The appeal is from a final order of a Justice of the Superior Court of Justice. The appellant has not pleaded facts in his Notice of Appeal that would bring the appeal within the monetary jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. He is asked to explain why this appeal is in the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court rather than the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
The appellant shall have fifteen days to address the concerns raised by the court. He shall respond to the court by email, as directed by the Registrar. Responding parties shall not deliver responding submissions unless this court subsequently directs otherwise.
Further, the appellant has brought several proceedings or steps in proceedings that the courts have dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process. See 2014 ONSC 5106 (B.P. O'Marra J.), 2015 ONSC 2926 (Then J.), 2016 ONSC 6649 (Hambly J.) and 2020 ONSC 4135 (D.L. Corbett J.) and 2020 ONSC 5135 (Penny J.). There appears to be a pattern of misuse of the court system, putting the system and opposing parties to unreasonable expense. These cases involve different targets (Toronto Police Services over an arrest on charges for which the appellant was ultimately convicted, alleged wrongful continued suspension of the appellant's driver's license for non-payment of a speeding fine, termination of the appellant's residential occupancy rights at a housing co-operative, and the College of Psychologists for declining to recognize a degree issued by a private American university as proper professional accreditation). Thus, it appears that the appellant's misuse of the court system is general, rather than targeted against one set of opponents. The appellant shall also address the question of why this court should not require the appellant to obtain leave from an administrative judge of the Divisional Court or his or her delegate before commencing any future proceedings in this court.
[2] Mr Mitchell did not respond to the R.2.1 notice substantively but did send the following email to the court on March 12, 2021:
Please note the direction coming from a justice who have already proven to be incompetent to the degree that currently his previous behavior towards me has been submitted to Canadian Judicial Council, therefore, his rhetoric is premeditated, predictable, insulative, bias, ill will, and meant to cause harm, to a victim who had suffered be a lawyer who participated in a criminal act. Again, I am forced to bring Mr. Corbett conduct again, to the CJC, in addition to the previous.
[3] On March 13, 2021, the court provided the following further direction:
The appellant has not provided a substantive response to the R.2.1.01 notice. He has 15 days in which to make a substantive response to the Notice, after which the court will decide the R.2.1.01 issue.
[4] Mr Mitchell has provided no further response to the R.2.1 notice.
[5] There is a strong presumption that judges are impartial and neutral. This presumption is not displaced by an adverse decision from the judge or a litigant’s sincerely held views. Nor may a jurist recuse himself because a disappointed litigant has made a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. Mr Mitchell does not get to select which judge will or will not hear his litigation.
[6] Mr Mitchell has provided no substantive response to the R.2.1 notice. His proceeding is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process on its face and is dismissed without costs pursuant to R.2.1. Mr Mitchell has shown a pattern of vexatious conduct as a litigant, as described in the first direction sent to him in this case, the cases referenced in that direction, and his response to the R.2.1 notice. It is ordered that Mr Mitchell may not commence or continue proceedings of any kind in the Divisional Court without first obtaining permission from a Divisional Court administrative judge or their designate.
___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.
Released: August 4, 2021