SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

PETER NOLAN

Plaintiff

-AND-

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AND ROBERT CAPPER AND ROBERT CONWAY AND LEE FERRIER AND DAN CHILCOTT AND ALAN ROCK AND CLAYTON RUBY

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: December 10, 2014

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated October 20, 2014, I directed the registrar to deliver a notice in Form 2.1A to the plaintiff and I stayed the action under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act pending the outcome of the review under rule 2.1.

[2] The registrar advises that the Form 2.1A that was sent to the plaintiff’s address for service as set out in his statement of claim has been returned undelivered by Canada Post. The registrar was able to determine from documents included in the statement of claim that the plaintiff had some sort of relationship with a law firm in Ottawa and, at some point, used that firm’s address. Accordingly, I instructed the registrar to send a copy of the Form 2.1A to the plaintiff in care of the law firm. That letter too was returned by Canada Post.

[3] Rule 4.02(3)(f) required the plaintiff to set out his address for service and telephone number on the backsheet of his statement of claim. The address that he provided was apparently incorrect. The telephone number that he provided was of the law firm noted above. The registrar has no way to get in touch with the plaintiff.

[4] Rule 2.1.01(3) provides a discretion to the court to alter the process for dealing with a motion under rule 2.1. While I am reluctant to make orders with no notice, the simplest skim of the statement of claim makes it clear that it is in the interests of justice to do so in this case.

[5] The body of the claim is one page. The plaintiff seems to challenge a decision made by the defendants or some of them in 1986 ordering the plaintiff to resign as a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The claim makes scurrilous allegations against some of the defendants in their professional and their personal lives. The plaintiff seems to claim that the defendants unlawfully determined an issue of law and in doing so fraudulently impersonated a federal court judge (perhaps meaning a federally appointed judge). The plaintiff compares his situation to a case of a lawyer whom he alleges was suspended for 60 days by the Law Society on charges of sexual misconduct. He, therefore, says that the order to resign that he was assessed was excessive and unlawful. He also pleads the defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) although it is not clear in what respect he does so.

[6] The claim is a lashing out about an event that happened approximately 28 years ago. There is no cause of action expressed on the face of the document. It is on its face obviously frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, embarrassing, and an abuse of process of the court. No one should have to spend money responding and no further court resources should be utilized for this matter. Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice for the court to exercise its discretion under rules 2.1.01(3) and 2.03 to waive service of the Form 2.1A on the plaintiff.

[7] The action is dismissed. The defendants are entitled to costs although the matter has been dismissed at the earliest stage. If the defendants wish to pursue their costs entitlement, costs are referred to an assessment officer in Toronto.

[8] The defendants may send a draft order directly to my office for signature. The court dispenses with any requirement to obtain the plaintiff’s approval as to form and content of the draft order.

[9] The registrar shall attempt to comply with rule 2.1.01(5) by sending a copy of this endorsement to the plaintiff by regular mail to his address for service on the statement of claim. The defendants shall attempt to serve a copy of the order on the plaintiff by regular mail at the address for service on the statement of claim.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: December 11, 2014