CITATION: Gledhill v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 ONSC 1755 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-516185
DATE: 20150318
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.
READ: March 18, 2015
endorsement
[1] By Endorsement dated February 13, 2015, 2015 ONSC 1006, 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. The registrar sent the notice. Mr. Gledhill has not responded although more than the set period for reply has elapsed.
[2] 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 cognizable allegations of law. On its face, the statement of claim in this action is frivolous and vexatious. It cannot succeed as it sets out no recognizable causes of action when read as generously as one can, given its unintelligible form. See: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497 at para. 22. Moreover, the claim is one of many brought by Mr. Gledhill. His conduct bears hallmarks of a vexatious litigant and querulous litigation behavior as discussed in Goa, supra,at paras. 13 and 14.
[3] Accordingly, the action is dismissed with costs. The plaintiff’s approval of the form and content of the formal order is dispensed with. Costs, if demanded by any of the defendants, are referred to an assessment officer. The registrar shall send a copy of this endorsement to the parties by mail and email (for those whose email addresses it has) and shall serve the formal order once signed and entered on Mr. Gledhill as required by rule 2.1.01(5).
________________________________ F.L. Myers J.
Date: March 18, 2015