BARRIE COURT FILE

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-0024

DATE: 20140103

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

PAUL ANDREWS

Applicant/Responding Party

– and –

KAREN SEELEY

Defendant/Moving Party

Paul Andrews, Self Represented

Richard Anka, for the Defendant/Moving Party

HEARD: December 3, 2013

REASONS FOR DECISION

HOWDEN J.:

[1] The Defendant Karen Seeley moves for an order dismissing this action on several grounds, the primary one being under Rule 21.01(b): that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. She also relies on grounds that the action is an abuse of process and that it is frivolous and vexatious, this being one more round in legal proceedings that date back in family law orders to 1994 when the Plaintiff was ordered to pay child support, spousal support and interim custody was awarded to the Defendant.

[2] I have had a chance to read and consider the Statement of Claim, and I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the moving party and the responding party himself. I have also considered the affidavit material on the abuse of process and vexatious grounds.

[3] The Statement of Claim consists of long meandering statements of the Plaintiff’s relationship with the Defendant and, more insistently, his latest relationship with Valerie Brennan, “the woman he loved” (Statement of Claim, para. 2). What it lacks is a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for his claims of damages, using the words of Rule 25.06(1) which defines what a pleading should contain. For instance, he says that he is trying to ground this action in, for one cause, slander and libel but not once does he plead the actual words of which he complains. Pleading of the statement complained of is a firm requirement of a pleading in a defamation action. As well, there is no affirmation that he complied with section 5 of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.L.12 which requires notice to the Defendant within six weeks after the defamatory statement comes to the Plaintiff’s attention.

[4] The key allegation appears to be the one in para. 13. It reads in part:

The defendant acting out of festering anger over having her claim for arrears struck down in 2004, insinuated herself into the situation as between the plaintiff and his then spouse Valerie Brennan out of malice and fraudulent intent to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff and his now current Spouse, and as a result of the Defendants actions the Plaintiff has suffered significant financial loss, and as a indirect consequence emanating from the Defendants actions a permanent impediment to his ability to earn income, significant emotional stress resulting from the loss of his spouse, the woman he loved and intended to marry and Significant damage to his reputation caused by the actions of the defendant. In addition to emotional stress..., causing significant medical distress and aggravation of the Existing medical conditions of the plaintiffs current spouse.

[5] He also claims that Brennan filed a fraudulent police report and that the Defendant violated his privacy rights by disclosing “facts of situations ...dating back decades ago, for which a Full pardon had been granted”, and that the Defendant and Brennan are acting together through the civil and family courts. He refers to the Defendant representing that the Plaintiff abandoned his son when “in fact it was the Defendant Whom ...in Barrie supreme family court before Justice McDermot that in fact she had denied all access as claimed by the plaintiff, and engaged in the actions ...resulting in the original order striking down the plaintiffs claims...being reaffirmed and upheld by justice McDermot...” (para. 12, Statement of Claim).

[6] I find that the Statement of Claim is little more than a statement of the Plaintiff’s opinions as to why he failed in certain actions in Family Court over the years. His allegation in para. 13 of insinuations into his marital relationship seems to be little more than an allegation of alienation of affection, a cause of action no longer allowable by statute.

[7] It fails to plead facts that could disclose a cause of action. It is incapable of founding an action or defining any cause of action that a Defendant could plead to and that could be properly tried. It is simply a litany of blame for how the Plaintiff feels about the court history since 1994. His claims of breaches of privacy rights and of the Charter have no foundation in this court as privacy breaches are remediable within the statutory provisions of the privacy legislation and there is no allegation of governmental actions that could found remedies under the Charter. In any event, they contain no material facts that could found a cause of action in this court.

[8] Pursuant to Rule 21.01(b) of the Rules of Court, Mr. Andrews’ Statement of Claim is struck on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. This action is dismissed.

[9] Furthermore, this action is little more than an attempt to air a lot of grievances of Mr. Andrews arising out of his litigious history over the last 20 years. It is frivolous and, together with the other actions of the Plaintiff, shows that he is attempting to conduct an action in a vexatious manner and that he is doing so persistently and without reasonable grounds in the context of a long history of litigation. Pursuant to Section 140 (1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, 1990 R.S.O. c. C. 43, it is ordered that no further proceeding may be instituted by Paul Taylor Andrews in any court except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

[10] I know that Mr. Anka left his costs submissions but there must be a process to allow some reply. If costs are not agreed, Mr. Anka must send his cost submission by mail to Mr. Andrews and to me at Barrie within one week and Mr. Andrews will have 14 days to send to me any brief, relevant submissions on costs in reply. I will then issue my decision on costs.

HOWDEN J.

Released: January 3, 2014