Bishop v. LSUC, CITATION: 2015 ONSC 1018
COURT FILE NO.: 14-48903
DATE: 2015-02-17
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Richard-Benjamin Bishop
AND: The Law Society of Upper Canada
BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay
COUNSEL: no one appearing for the plaintiff; Mr John F. Evans, QC for the defendant
HEARD: 2015-02-13
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The plaintiff did not appear although called. I did have the benefit of his written argument.
[2] The defendant moves to strike the statement of claim without leave to amend on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The defendant also moves to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
[3] The plaintiff wants to represent claimants before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. He cannot do this because he is neither a lawyer nor a paralegal. The Law Society initiated an investigation. It wrote to the plaintiff and invited him to participate. He declined and instead issued the present action.
[4] In an earlier action, 13-43228, the plaintiff sued the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Law Society. He claimed that everybody who does not let him represent claimants is in violation of the Access to Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Reid J. struck out the statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissed the action in a decision given from the bench on June 12, 2014. He pointed out that the Law Society is entitled, and required, to govern persons who appear before tribunals. The Access for Ontarians with Disabilities Act does not require the Law Society to allow unlicensed persons to offer legal services.
No reasonable cause of action
[5] In the present action, the plaintiff claims that the Law Society has investigated him in reprisal for having brought action 13-43288. That is not a reasonable cause of action. The Law Society is entitled to investigate persons who are allegedly offering legal services without a licence, whether they have previously launched a frivolous lawsuit against the Law Society or not. Review of the Law Society Act as a whole reveals that it does not create a private law duty of care: Edwards v. LSUC, 2001 SCC 80, [2001] SCJ No. 77. Importantly, section 9 of the Act specifically gives the Law Society and its officers immunity from civil liability for the performance in good faith of its statutory duties.
[6] The plaintiff claims $1,025,000 damages for “privacy violations” for using confidential information in an investigative proceeding without a warrant or cause. He does not say what information is used or how, or from where it was obtained. He does not allege any search, seizure or interception. This bald claim discloses no cause of action.
[7] He claims “reprisal” under section 37 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and damages of $50,000 per day. That section provides:
- (1) A person is guilty of an offence who,
(a) furnishes false or misleading information in an accessibility report filed with a director under this Act or otherwise provides a director with false or misleading information;
(b) fails to comply with any order made by a director or the Tribunal under this Act; or
(c) contravenes subsection 20 (8)[1] or subsection (2).
(2) No person shall intimidate, coerce, penalize or discriminate against another person because that person,
(a) has sought or is seeking the enforcement of this Act or of a director’s order made under this Act;
(b) has co-operated or may co-operate with inspectors; or
(c) has provided, or may provide, information in the course of an inspection or proceeding under this Act.
(3) Every person who is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction,
(a) to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues to occur; or
(b) if the person is a corporation, to a fine of not more than $100,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues to occur.
[8] Nothing in section 37 prohibits the Law Society from conducting an investigation. Conducting an investigation cannot reasonably be characterized as intimidation, coercion, penalizing or discrimination. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the plaintiff has done any of the acts listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection 37(2). Offering legal services without a licence is not “seeking enforcement of the Act.”
[9] The plaintiff also claims for a “customer service violation as a disabled person” under O.Reg. 429/07, Section “(3) (2) (1)”, which I take to be clause 1. of subsection 3(2) of the Regulation, which provides:
(2) The provider shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that its policies, practices and procedures are consistent with the following principles:
The goods or services must be provided in a manner that respects the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities.
[10] This claim mentions nothing about what services were offered, how they failed to meet the standard, or what disability needs to be accommodated. Nor does this section create a cause of action.
[11] The statement of claim alleges nothing that would not be covered by the immunity conferred under s.9 of the Law Society Act.
[12] In sum, the action is entirely unreasonable and cannot be repaired by amendment. The claim must be struck out without leave to amend.
Frivolous and vexatious action
[13] In Canada v. CSN, 2014 SCC 49, paragraph 1, the Supreme Court said:
Judicial resources must be husbanded to ensure that the courts function properly and that litigants have access to a justice system that meets the highest possible standards. With this in mind, lawmakers have given the courts tools to be used, even at a preliminary stage, to put an end to actions that are bound to fail. In Quebec, for example, art. 165 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C‑25 (“C.C.P.”), is one of the mechanisms devised to further this objective. The courts must be cautious in exercising this power, however. Although the proper administration of justice requires that the courts’ resources not be expended on actions that are bound to fail, the cardinal principle of access to justice requires that the power be used sparingly, where it is clear that an action has no reasonable chance of success.
[14] This is such an action. The plaintiff wants to use the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to give legal services for which he is not licensed. The Act does not give him that right. The plaintiff refuses to recognize that it is no benefit to Ontarians with disabilities to be represented by unqualified persons like him. The Law Society Act protects all Ontarians from being victimized by unqualified and incompetent advocates.
[15] The action has no chance of succeeding. The Superior Court should not allow this action to deflect its limited resources from other litigants who have a real claim to justice and who expect justice to be administered to the highest possible standards.
Abuse of process
[16] This action is also an abuse of process. It is nothing more than an attempt to re-try the action that Reid J. threw out.
Conclusion
[17] The statement of claim is struck without leave to amend. The action is dismissed.
J.A. Ramsay J.
Date: 2015-02-17
[1] [1] Subsection 20(8) prohibits obstructing an inspector.