Beatty v. Ontario (A.G.), 2015 ONSC 1519

COURT FILE NO.: 5579/14

DATE: 2015-03-06

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: TERRI FRANCES BEATTY, Plaintiff,

AND:

HER MAJESTY QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, TARA NOBLE, SUPERVISOR AT THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, SUSAN PEACY, ASSIGNED INVESTIGATOR BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, HER MAJESTY QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, HALTON REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD, DETECTIVE CONSTABLE ALLISON THERIAULT OF HALTON REGIONAL POLICE, DETECTIVE CONSTABLE ANDREW HULBERT OF HALTON REGIONAL POLICE, DETECTIVE CONSTABLE ALANDA PRESCOD, HER MAJESTY QUEEN IN RIGHT AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, MARCIE MILROY OF HALTON’S CHILDREN’S AID, AMY BRAMWELL OF HALTON’S CHILDREN’S AID, LISA POTTS OF HALTON’S CHILDREN’S AID, MEAGHAN CHRISTY OF HALTON’S CHILDREN’S AID, JENNIFER BINNINGTON, DIRECTOR OF CHILD PROTECTION, HALTON’S CHILDREN’S AID, ROMAN SLUSKI, DAWN SLUSKI, NEVE SLUSKI, TORI SLUSKI, DAVID SLUSKI AND SONYA HOLLINGS, Defendants,

BEFORE: Gray J.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] On February 6, 2015, I issued an endorsement in which I directed the Registrar to give notice under Form 2.1A to the plaintiff, that the court would consider making an order under rule 2.1.01(1). The notice was given, and the plaintiff filed written submissions.

[2] At this stage, I am to consider whether the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. I am to make such a determination in a summary manner.

[3] Justice Myers of this court has written a number of helpful decisions under rule 2.1. I have found particularly helpful his decisions in Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), [2014] O.J. No. 4916 (S.C.J.) (“Gao #1”); and Gao v. Ontario (Workplace and Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497, [2014] O.J. No. 5307 (“Gao #2”).

[4] In Gao #1 at para. 9, Myers J. stated “Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls.” In Gao #2, at para. 18, he elaborated on that theme by stating:

It should be borne in mind however, that even a vexatious litigant can have a legitimate complaint. It is not uncommon for there to be a real issue at the heart of a vexatious litigant’s case. The problem is often that the litigant either cannot properly communicate the concern or, more typically, cannot accept that the law may not provide the remedy sought despite the unfairness felt by the litigant. While rule 2.1 should be applied robustly to bring to an early end vexatious proceedings, the matters should not be considered lightly or dismissively. Care should be taken to allow generously for drafting deficiencies and recognizing that there may be a core complaint which is quite properly recognized as legitimate even if the proceeding itself if frivolously brought or carried out and ought to be dismissed.

[5] I have thus examined the statement of claim to see whether there is a real issue at the heart of the case, notwithstanding any deficiencies in the pleading.

[6] It is fair to say that there are two main deficiencies in the statement of claim. First, it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming remedies that simply cannot be awarded by the court. In a number of places in the pleading, the plaintiff demands that the provincial government and various agencies alter their policies, primarily with respect to the way or ways in which abused children are dealt with. Clearly, this sort of request cannot be entertained by a court.

[7] More fundamentally, however, the pleading simply does not set out any facts that could form the basis of a claim that can be adjudicated. Any facts mentioned are very general in nature and are not connected to any justiciable claim that might be made by the plaintiff. There is a glimmer of a suggestion that one or more of the plaintiff’s children may have been abused by someone, and there may have been fault on the part of one or more agencies in detecting or dealing with such abuse.

[8] My tentative impression in that respect is really guesswork on my part, because it is not at all clear that that is the plaintiff’s real complaint, and it is not clear as to against whom the complaint is made.

[9] At this point, the statement of claim can only be regarded as frivolous and vexatious.

[10] In fairness to the plaintiff, in her submissions to me she appears to recognize that her statement of claim is deficient. She advises that she intends to file an amended claim, and requests that I withhold ruling on this matter until her amended claim is put forward. Alternatively, she asks that if I dismiss the action pursuant to rule 2.1, I make it without prejudice to any further claim she may bring that hopefully will pass muster.

[11] I accept the plaintiff’s second option. In my view, the current statement of claim is so deficient that it cannot be maintained, and is clearly frivolous and vexatious. It is better, in my view, that she entirely recast her claim and put forward a proper pleading from which her real claim, if she has one, can be ascertained.

[12] For these brief reasons, the action is dismissed. As requested by the plaintiff, it is without prejudice to a new action that she may bring if so advised.

[13] I will take the liberty of offering some advice to the plaintiff. I suggest that if she proceeds with a new action, she might consider spending a small amount of money to have a lawyer look at her statement of claim before it is issued. If any new action is again found to be frivolous and vexatious, there is a strong possibility that she will not be given another opportunity to repair it.

[14] There will be no order as to costs.

Gray J.

Date: March 6, 2015