Citation: Tran v. AMC Environmental, 2021 ONSC 7419

Divisional Court File Nos.: 133/21 and 252/21 Date: 2021-11-09 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Tran v. AMC Environmental Corp.; Tran v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 86

Before: D.L. Corbett J.

Heard: In Writing, In Chambers

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated September 3, 2021, released September 6, 2021 (2020 ONSC 5902), I directed the Registrar to give Ms Tran notice as follows:

(a) that the court is considering dismissing as abandoned Ms Tran’s motions for leave to appeal from the order of Speyer J. refusing to appoint amicus curiae and from the order of Dunphy J. appointing the PGT, because of Ms Tran’s failure to comply with court directions and timetables.

(b) that the court is considering dismissing her appeal of the March 30, 2021 order of Speyer J. pursuant to R.2.1.01 on the basis that leave to appeal is required and has not been obtained.

(c) that the court is considering dismissing her motion for leave to appeal the order of Speyer J. dated May 3, 2021 on the basis (a) that Ms Tran has failed to comply with the court’s direction to provide the court with a copy of the decision from which she seeks to appeal, thus demonstrating, in the context of Ms Tran’s response and her conduct throughout in this court, that Ms Tran is ungovernable; (b) the conclusion of Speyer J. that a holder of a registered interest in land may not obtain a certificate of pending litigation claiming the same interest in the land; (c) there is no basis upon which Ms Tran could seek leave to appeal any other aspect of Justice Speyer’s order; (d) the Notice of Motion is so lacking in particularity that it is not possible to identify a potentially meritorious ground of appeal; and (e) thus in all the circumstances the motion for leave to appeal is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Ms Tran was also told to respond to a concern that her conduct in this court and in the litigation which is the subject matter of these proceedings has been such that she should be precluded from commencing or continuing any further proceedings without prior leave from a Superior Court Justice.

[2] Ms Tran responded to these notices as follows:

(a) By letter dated September 9, 2021, Ms Tran claimed that the court has been repeatedly prejudiced against a “self-represented mentally incapable [person]” and that the court failed to respond to a prior letter from Ms Tran dated April 7, 2021;

(b) By email dated September 14, 2021, Ms Tran purported to bring a motion for an order appointing counsel or amicus curiae for her in relation to her proceedings in the Divisional Court;

(c) By further emails, Ms Tran challenged the court’s recourse to R.2.1.01 and requested responses to her concerns that the notices ought not to have been issued.

Ms Tran never responded substantively to the issues raised in my endorsement of September 3, 2021, or the R.2.1.01 Notices sent pursuant to that endorsement. When she was asked to do so again by court staff, she responded reiterating her points set out above.

[3] I appreciate that Ms Tran does not agree with this court’s decision not to appoint counsel or amicus curiae for her for the motions for leave to appeal. Those decisions were made in April, they were explained to Ms Tran orally and in writing. Ms Tran is capable of preparing legal documents and has done so extensively before other courts. She was told to “do her best” on the motions for leave to appeal. She disagreed with the court’s directions and so did not comply.

[4] Ms Tran’s correspondence of April 7, 2021 (like much of her prior correspondence) was the subject matter of responses from the court, including at the case management teleconference in April. The court did not dismiss her proceedings pursuant to the prior R.2.1.01 notice, and instead gave Ms Tran directions pursuant to which her motions for leave to appeal could proceed. A critical purpose of the conference was to explain to Ms Tran that she had to comply with the court’s directions. This was explained to her in detailed directions. As I have explained previously, I was satisfied at the conference that Ms Tran is intelligent and that she is capable of understanding directions given to her and the consequences of not following them.

[5] Ms Tran’s proceedings in this court are dismissed without costs. The reasons are the concerns set out in my endorsement of September 3, 2021, to which Ms Tran did not respond substantively. Ms Tran’s motion for leave to appeal the order of Speyer J. refusing to grant an injunction preventing the sale of Ms Tran’s commercial condominium is dismissed as moot: the condominium sale to a third party closed on August 30, 2021.

[6] Ms Tran’s conduct as a litigant in this court, while demonstrating ungovernability, has not been so excessive to warrant an order restricting her recourse to the justice system. Indeed, her conduct has been more destructive of her self-interest than of the interests of her litigation opponents. I therefore decline to make an order restricting Ms Tran’s future recourse to this court. However, Ms Tran has been ungovernable in this court, and this pattern may be taken into account if a court, in future, is called upon to decide whether Ms Tran is a vexatious litigant.

D.L. Corbett

November 9, 2021