Gledhill v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 ONSC 1006

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14 – 516185

DATE: 20150213

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Gledhill

Plaintiff

-AND-

Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”) & Brian Maslowski, #7604 (“OIC”),

PC21 Nicholas Smith (“10747”), PC12 Dharmendra Grewel (“8070”),

PC 12 Phoel Ong (#5346) (“McNeil 1”), PL14 John Maciek (#4032) (“McNeil 2”)

(“MOS”), The Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) & Odelia Delgado (“OD”),

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (“MCSCS”) & Ian McKinley (“IMK”),

Scotia Plaza & Michael Cole (“40 KING WEST”), Canderel Group of Companies & Janis

Braun, Moses Aguirre (“CANDEREL”), GWL Realty Advisors & Sandra Celli (“GWL”),

Brookfield Place & Philip Longton (“PL”), et al (“BROOKFIELD”), Intercon/Garda World

(“INTERCON”) & Brett Humphrey (“BH”), Brent Alan Dewell (#099452) (“BAD”),

William Rodger (#103552) (“WR”), Wagner Morilla (#10728327) (“WM”), Alexander

Evanchick (“AE”), John Doe (“609146”)

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

COUNSEL: D. Hornich for Toronto Police Services Board and several police officer defendants; J. Parker for The Attorney General of Ontario

HEARD: February 12, 2015

endorsement

[1] By Endorsement dated January 19, 2015, 2015 ONSC 374, I stayed this action and directed the registrar to send a notice in Form 2.1A to the plaintiff advising him that the court was considering dismissing this action under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Counsel for several of the defendants appeared before me today to advise that in the plethora of proceedings commenced by Mr. Gledhill, I had confused this action with another that I heard last year. As such, my reasons for staying this action were incorrect.

[2] Mr. Gledhill did not appear today although he was informed of this hearing that was scheduled by Himel J. in her Endorsement dated February 4, 2015. Mr. Gledhill was present before Himel J.

[3] I have reviewed the statement of claim in this action again. Mr. Gledhill uses an idiosyncratic form of pleading in which he lists parties’ names and then follows with a dense paragraph of legal terms that do not set out concise allegations of facts nor make any legally cognizable allegations of law. On its face, the statement of claim in this action appears to be frivolous and vexatious.

[4] Therefore the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give a further notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01;

b. The stay of proceedings imposed in my Endorsement of January 19, 2015 remains in effect. The defendants’ motion to strike and the plaintiff’s motion for particulars and to strike statements of defence are all stayed. The registrar is to release the dates held for these motions in March, 2015. They can be re-booked if this action proceeds;

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: February 13, 2015