SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Luis Lopez and Laura Lopez, Applicants

AND:

235 Grandravine Drive, Respondent

BEFORE: D. M. Brown J.

COUNSEL:
Luis Lopez and Laura Lopez, in person

No notice given to the respondent

HEARD: August 3, 2012, with subsequent correspondence from the applicants dated November 16, 2012

REASONS FOR DECISION

Another effort by vexatious litigants to do an end-run around judicial orders

[ 1 ] The applicants, parties who some time ago were declared vexatious litigants, have tried, for many years, to obtain an order granting them leave to institute further proceedings in this Court. Quigley J., in his reasons dated December 2, 2011 ( 2011 ONSC 7198 ), set out the history of the applicants’ efforts in some detail and refused to grant them leave.

[ 2 ] Undeterred, the applicants appeared in Motions Scheduling Court (“MSC”) on January 17, 2012 where Low J. found their renewed request to be an abuse of process. The applicants appeared before me on August 3, 2012 when I was sitting in MSC to make a further request for a motion date. I denied their request, writing:

I have read the entire Motion Record including Tab 6, the proposed Notice of Application. It is a variant of the old Notice of Application – Tab 5. Paras. 15 & 16 of the Reasons of Quigley J. say it all. Just as Low J. found the request before MSC on Jan 17/12 to be an abuse of process, so too I find today’s request in MSC to be an abuse of process.

I order that on a go-forward basis no materials from Luis Lopez and Laura Lopez shall be accepted for MSC in any matter involving 235 Grandravine Drive or Old York Tower Non-Profit Seniors Housing. Paras. 27 to 30 of the endorsement of Quigley J. remain in force, subject to the variation I have made.

[ 3 ] As is the case with most vexatious litigants, the adage “if there is a will, there is a way” applies to the applicants. Instead of seeking a further date for a motion for leave in Motions Scheduling Court, they delivered their motion materials directly to my office at the courthouse, thereby circumventing the Civil Motions Office and Motions Scheduling Court. Consistent with their practice this past summer, they did not give the other side notice of their communication with the Court.

[ 4 ] To Mr. and Mrs. Lopez I say:

(i) I will not consider the materials you delivered to my office. I have sent them to the Civil Motions Office for filing with a copy of these Reasons;

(ii) If you make any further attempt to correspond with my office, I simply will forward them to file storage unread, without acknowledgment or response. You have had your (many) days in court, and your continued vexatious communications waste judicial time;

(iii) At some point of time you should start reading the orders and reasons made by the many judges of this Court who have considered your matter and obey them, instead of ignoring them; and,

(iv) I am sending copies of these Reasons to the Toronto Region Civil Team Leader and to the Civil Trial Coordinator so that they are aware of your most recent attempt to abuse the process of this Court.

D. M. Brown J.

Date : November 25, 2012