CITATION: Virgo v. Deputy Judges Council, 2022 ONSC 4500
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 626/18
DATE: 20220805
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
JENNIFER VIRGO
Ms Virgo, self-represented
Appellant
– and –
DEPUTY JUDGES COUNCIL
Respondent
In Chambers, In Writing
REASONS FOR DECISION[^1]
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] The appellant contacted the Divisional Court in March 2022, seeking to bring two motions in two long outstanding small claims court appeals:
(a) A motion to review an order of Labrosse J., dismissing one of the appeals pursuant to R.2.1; and
(b) A motion to review the order of Thorburn J. (as she then was), refusing to consolidate or order heard together the two appeals (and related directions).
[2] The court directed that notice be given pursuant to R.2.1 that the court was considering dismissing the two motions as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, and directing that the appellant and her husband be required to obtain prior permission from an administrative judge of the Divisional Court prior to commencing or continuing any further proceedings in the Divisional Court, based on the following concerns:
The proceedings involving the Deputy Judges Council have been dismissed by order of Labrosse J, pursuant to R.2.1. No further steps are available in this court and the moving party's sole recourse was a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Labrosse J. to the Court of Appeal. The moving party has been given this direction already and continues to bring meritless additional steps in this court.
The order of Thorburn J. (as she then was) refusing to transfer the two files from Ottawa to Toronto, was made in 2018. The time to seek review of that decision expired four years ago. Further, no basis is established for appealing such an order or for supposing that Thorburn J.'s exercise of discretion was based on a wrong principle.
The notices of motion are prolix, largely incoherent, raise countless irrelevant issues. Self-represented persons are not held to the same standard as lawyers, but pleadings must nevertheless confirm to basic standards of rationality and be comprehensible.
Mr Olumide has been declared vexatious by other courts but continues to "help" or "seek to help" his spouse, Ms Virgo. This is a concern in two respects. First, to the extent that Ms Virgo may rely upon Mr Olumide without realizing the incompetence of his efforts, she is exposed to potentially substantial costs awards against her. Second, as a person found to be vexatious, Mr Olumide is not a suitable representative in court for anyone but himself.
The history of proceedings in the Small Claims Court discloses a long pattern of vexatious conduct that has consumed unreasonable resources. The justice system is required to regulate this sort of behaviour so that scarce public resources devoted to the justice system are used to adjudicate potentially meritorious claims, rather than dealing with extended vexatious proceedings brought by Ms Virgo and Mr Olumide.
[3] Ms Virgo did not respond to the R.2.1 notice. On July 19, 2022, by email, the court directed as follows:
The two proceedings referenced above are dismissed as vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of process. The reasons for dismissal are set out in the email in which the court directed issuance of the R.2.1 notices, in April 2022. Ms Virgo did not respond to the R.2.1 Notice.
Ms Virgo is prohibited from commencing proceedings in Divisional Court without obtaining prior permission from an administrative judge.
This direction is effective from the date of this email; a further formal endorsement may be released subsequently for publication on legal databases.
___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.
Email Decision Released: July 19, 2022
Written Endorsement Released: August 5, 2022
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 626/18
DATE: 20220805
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett J.
BETWEEN:
JENNIFER VIRGO
Appellant
– and –
DEPUTY JUDGES COUNCIL
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Email Decision Released: July 19, 2022
Written Endorsement Released: August 5, 2022
[^1]: This decision was provided to the parties by email on July 19, 2022, and was effective as of that date. The reasons have been edited without changing the substance of the decision.