COURT FILE NO.: C-1704-11 A
DATE: 20120605
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
PHILIP JOUDREY and MARY GERALDINE JOUDREY
Plaintiffs
– and –
MARK JOUDREY and HOLLY LAFOREST
Defendants
- and –
JOHN JOUDREY and BONNIE BRUNO and CHRISTINE VIOLLETE
Third Parties
Richard Guy, for the Plaintiffs.
James M. Longstreet, for the Defendants.
Richard Guy, for the Third Parties.
HEARD: May 30, 2012
gauthier, j.
[1] The Third Parties seek an Order striking out the Third Party Claim as (a) disclosing no reasonable cause of action and/or (b) being frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the Court. They rely on rule 21.01(1)(b) and rule 21.01(3)(d).
[2] On such a motion, no evidence is admissible and one must assume that the facts pleaded are provable; it must be “plain and obvious” that the Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action: Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959.
Facts:
[3] The Plaintiffs, Philip Joudrey (“Philip”) and Mary Geraldine Joudrey (“Mary”) owned 47 Joudrey Drive, Wahnapitae until 2008 at which time the property was split, with one portion being transferred to their son, John Joudrey (“John”) and his wife Shirley Joudrey, and the other portion being transferred to the Plaintiffs’ grandson, Mark Joudrey (“Mark”) and his wife Holly Laforest (“Holly”). The Plaintiffs retained a life interest in both pieces of property.
[4] In May 2009, Mark and Holly mortgaged the property. Philip and Mary signed a Direction to remove their life interest from the parcel registry. There is a dispute about whether or not Philip and Mary knew that they were giving up their life interest when they signed the Direction.
[5] Unhappy differences developed between Philip and Mary and Mark and Holly. Apparently, Philip was prevented from accessing the property.
[6] Mark and Holly’s conduct aggrieved and offended Philip and Mary, and, on December 23, 2011, they commenced an action by way of Statement of Claim, against Mark and Holly, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Application which deleted their life interest in 47 Joudrey Drive, is void, and for the sum of $50,000 for elder abuse.
[7] Mark and Holly delivered a Statement of Defence on February 9, 2012, and, on February 14, 2012, a Third Party Claim against John Joudrey (the son of Philip and Mary), Bonnie Bruno and Christine Viollete, the sisters of John. The Third Party Claim is for damages in the amount of $15,000, and for punitive, aggravated, and/or exemplary damages in the amount of $10,000.
[8] The Third Party Claim repeats the allegations in the Statement of Defence, and I reproduce paragraphs 3 to 19, inclusive below:
The defendants state and the fact is that when they mortgaged the property in 2009, the plaintiffs signed off on their life interest knowingly and voluntarily, on May 28, 2009, and in accordance with the life interest agreement made on October 31, 2008.
The defendants state and the fact is that the plaintiffs were offered independent legal advice, which they refused, and voluntarily, willingly, and knowledgably signed off on their life interest.
The defendants state and the fact is that for years they cared for and helped the plaintiffs and were constantly looking out for and acting in their best interests.
The defendants state that Philip Joudrey is in his 80’s and is incapable of carrying on any business of the property; he can’t go there in the winter and rarely goes there in fair weather.
The defendants state and the fact is that Philip Joudrey has not operated the property as a business for years and has not sold scrap since 2009.
The defendants state and the fact is that Mary Geraldine Joudrey has not been on the site for 20 years.
The defendants state and the fact is that the property demanded by the plaintiffs was promptly turned over to the plaintiffs by the defendants (Chattels).
The defendant, Mark Joudrey, has indicated that he has always helped Philip Joudrey with respect to tractor repairs, ploughing his driveway, cutting and splitting his firewood, fixing stove pipes, and so on.
The defendant, Holly Laforest, has always helped the Joudrey family, and in particular, has looked after Mary Geraldine Joudrey helping her by taking her to hair appointments, doctor appointments, shopping, cleaning, even scouring out the mould in the basement of the senior Joudrey residence.
The defendants state and the fact is that the plaintiffs were turned against the defendants by their son, John Joudrey, and their daughters, Bonnie Bruno and Christine Viollete as follows:
Uncle John Joudrey took great exception to his father, Philip, giving the defendant grandson, Mark Joudrey, a piece of the property;
John Joudrey was angry and begrudged the bequest;
The aunts, Bonnie and Christine, began a negative campaign against Mark Joudrey and Holly Laforest about the time that Mark’s mother was dying. The aunts accused Mark and Holly of trying to coerce Mark’s mother, who was dying, into transferring all of her worldly goods to Mark and Holly;
The defendants state and the fact is that since the time of Mark’s mother’s death, John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno and Christine Viollete went against the defendants in a malicious, defamatory campaign wherein they have inflamed Philip Joudrey such that he has turned on his grandson Mark Joudrey, and wife Holly Laforest.
The defendants state and the fact is that the aunts, Bonnie Bruno and Christine Viollete, have taunted the defendants about huge damages that they will have to pay and costs.
The defendants state and the fact is that they have done nothing to Philip and Mary Geraldine Joudrey that would give rise to any seniors abuse.
The defendants state that just recently they helped the plaintiffs by extricating them out of a Superior Court action which they were wrongfully named as parties.
The defendants state that the damages sought for the property and the general damages claimed are excessive and remote and if granted, but totally denied, would easily be in the competence of Small Claims Court.
The defendants state that John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete are the parties who damaged the feelings of the seniors, Philip and Mary Geraldine Joudrey, in their twilight years and have committed elder abuse.
The defendants state that they have also been damaged by the aforesaid Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete.
[9] The Third Party Claim goes on to state the following:
The defendants state that but for the cruel inter-meddling by John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete, whereby the minds of the plaintiffs were turned against the defendants, these parties have turned an otherwise cordial, close, and loving relationship into ruin.
The defendants state that for various reasons of the third parties, being greed, avarice, or other personal motives, have caused the plaintiffs to turn against the defendants.
The defendants state that John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete were within the confidence of their elder parents, Philip and Mary Geraldine Joudrey, and breached this confidence knowingly causing harm to the defendants and the plaintiffs themselves.
The defendants state that there was a proximity of a relationship between the defendants and also the plaintiffs wherein John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete abused this relationship and have wrongfully destroyed the trust and the bond of friendship previously existing between the plaintiffs and defendants.
The defendants state that they have suffered emotionally and have incurred a loss of enjoyment of life and their property and the general well being of good character and respect in the community through the negligent or intentional actions on the part of John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno and Christine Viollete.
The defendants ask that the court find the actions of John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete to be shocking and totally without justification and that these actions should be sanctioned under the heading of punitive damages and/or aggravated damages and/or exemplary damages.
The defendants, mark Joudrey and Holly Laforest, state that the court should send a message to John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete that this type of conduct, meddling improperly with relations between loved ones should not be tolerated.
The defendants state that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, and also by the defendants, should be paid by John Joudrey, Bonnie Bruno, and Christine Viollete, jointly and severally along with interest and costs.
Issue:
[10] Does the Third Party Claim disclose a cause of action, and/or should the Third Party Claim be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the court process.
Answer and Reasons:
[11] The Third Party Claim does not disclose a cause of action recognized in law, and it will be dismissed pursuant to rule 21.01(1)(b). I need not address whether the Third Party Claim is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process.
[12] At the heart of the Third Party Claim is the complaint that John, Bonnie, and Christine meddled in the affairs of Philip and Mary, and Mark and Holly, and that they turned Philip and Mary against Mark and Holly.
[13] The allegation is that an earlier close, loving, and cordial family relationship was destroyed by John, Bonnie, and Christine not minding their own business, and becoming involved in the dealings between Philip and Mary and Mark and Holly.
[14] Mark and Holly claim that John, Bonnie, and Christine hurt Philip’s feelings by saying negative things to Philip about Mark and Holly, thereby “inflaming” Philip.
[15] The heart of the complaint is the “improper meddling with relations between loved ones”.
[16] Although the law of torts “hovers over virtually every activity of modern society” (Canadian Tort Law by Allen M. Linden and Bruce Feldthusen, eighth edition, page 1), it does not regulate or seek to oversee family relationships or interactions. It is not a vehicle to compensate family members for bruised feelings, or disrupted or damaged family relationships.
[17] The closest the Third Party Claim can come to a tort is the tort of alienation of affection which never covered the relationship between grand-parents and their children, and which, in any event, was abolished in Ontario in 1978.
[18] For the reasons set out above, the Third Party Claim is dismissed. If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they are to communicate with the Trial Coordinator within twenty (20) days of this Ruling to fix a date and time to argue costs, failing which there will no costs awarded to either side.
Madam Justice L. L. Gauthier
Released: June 5, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: C-1704-11 A
DATE: 20120605
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
PHILIP JOUDREY and MARY GERALDINE JOUDREY
Plaintiffs
– and –
MARK JOUDREY and HOLLY LAFOREST
Defendants
- and –
JOHN JOUDREY and BONNIE BRUNO and CHRISTINE VIOLLETE
Third Parties
RULING ON MOTION
GAUTHIER, J.
Released: June 5, 2012