SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

CITATION: Clarke v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., 2015 ONSC 1789
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-519143
DATE: 20150318

B E T W E E N:

Nicole Makeba Clarke

Plaintiff

-AND-

Canadian Human Rights Commission and William Osler Health System

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: February 19, 2015

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated February 19, 2015, the court directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court was considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action.

[2] The plaintiff has responded with a submission in which she advises that she has told counsel for the defendant Canadian Human Rights Commission that she intends to discontinue her action against it. If she has not done so by April 4, 2015, counsel may contact me without further notice to the plaintiff seeking a dismissal order.

[3] In my prior endorsement I wrote:

The statement of claim also appears to be devoid of material facts required to plead negligence against the hospital. It appears that the claims is [sic] on its face frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the court as it cannot succeed. The plaintiff should be called upon to make written submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed at this stage.

[4] In her written submission, if I am reading it correctly, the plaintiff seems to clarify that she alleges that the defendant William Osler Health System negligently failed to diagnose her tachycardia and high blood pressure for which she has now been prescribed medicine in UK. She claims a loss of income due to her condition negligently going untreated until her return to UK.

[5] While the statement of claim has obvious issues under the rules applicable to the content of pleadings, the plaintiff seems to be trying to advance a recognized cause of action. Moreover, her position as against the other defendant may disclose that she is making efforts to avoid being labelled as a vexatious litigant. Accordingly, I am not yet in a position to determine whether r.2.1 applies this action.

[6] Rule 2.1.01(3)(4) authorizes the court to direct the registrar to give a copy of the plaintiff’s submission to any other party to the action. Then, r.2.1.01(3)(5) allows that party to file a written submission of no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the plaintiff’s submissions. The responding submission is required to be delivered to the plaintiff as well. In this case, in my view, the remaining defendant ought to be given an opportunity to review the plaintiff’s submission and make a responding submission on the issue of whether the court ought to be dismissing this action under rule 2.1. for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

[7] Under r.2.1.01(3)(4) the court directs the registrar to give a copy of the plaintiff’s submission to the counsel for the defendant William Osler Health System and to send this endorsement to all parties by mail and by email if it has their email addresses.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: March 18, 2015