CITATION: Raba v. Wronecki, 2015 ONSC 20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TOMASZ RABA
Plaintiff
– and –
KAROL WRONECKI, AND LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AND UNNAMED CO-CONSPIRATORS EMPLOYED BY AND AGENTS FOR LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CO-CONSPIRATOR 1, AND CO-CONSPIRATOR 2, AND CO-CONSPIRATORS N
Defendants
Tomasz Raba, self-represented
Heather Burnett for the Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
TOMASZ RABA
Plaintiff
– and –
EGYA NDAYINANSE SANGMUAH AND LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AND UNNAMED CO-CONSPIRATORS EMPLOYED BY AND AGENTS FOR LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CO-CONSPIRATOR 1, AND CO-CONSPIRATOR 2, AND CO-CONSPIRATORS N
Defendants
Tomasz Raba, self-represented
Heather Burnett for the Defendants
HEARD: December 22, 2014
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1In action CV-14-501568, the Plaintiff Tomasz Raba, who is self-represented, brings an action against Karol Wronecki, the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”), and Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2 and Co-Conspirators N.
2In action CV-14-501571, Mr. Raba sues Egya Ndayinanse Sangmuah, again the Board, and again Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2 and Co-Conspirators N.
3The Defendants in both actions, who are all represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, bring motions under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike Mr. Raba’s claims without leave to amend.
4The Defendants contend that: (a) the Board does not have the capacity to be sued; (b) Mr. Wronecki and Mr. Sangmuah, who are members of the Board, are statutorily immune from personal liability pursuant to s. 232(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17; (c) Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2, and Co Conspirators N, as employees of the Board, are similarly immune from personal liability; (d) the Statements of Claim do not disclose a reasonable cause of action; and (e) Mr. Raba’s actions are an abuse of process for being a collateral attack on the Board’s decisions or they are re-litigation of matters already decided by the Board or by this Court.
5Mr. Raba resists the Defendants’ motions.
6Mr. Raba submits that: (a) because the Board is a legally recognized entity, it, therefore, has the capacity to be sued; (b) the acts of Mr. Wronecki and Mr. Sangmuah were illegal, outrageous, and not done in good faith and, therefore, they have no statutory immunity; (c) similarly, the employees of the Board do not have statutory immunity for their misconduct; (d) his Statement of Claims do disclose causes of action and, most particularly, the pleadings disclose various torts, including malfeasance in public office and breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and (e) there was and is no collateral attack on the decisions of the Board and it is the Defendants and not he who has committed an abuse of process.
7Mr. Raba also submits that the Ministry of the Attorney General is complicit in the misdeeds of the Defendants.
8Having reviewed the material filed by both parties on these motions and having reviewed Mr. Raba’s factum and his current and former Statements of Claim made against the Defendants, I disagree with Mr. Raba’s counterarguments.
9By and large, I agree with the Defendants’ arguments, and I, therefore, grant their motions, and I dismiss Mr. Raba’s actions. His actions have no prospect of success.
10Mr. Raba is correct in thinking that the Board is a legal entity, but he is wrong in thinking that it is a suable one. Mr. Raba is correct in thinking that Mr. Wronecki and Mr. Sangmuah and the employees of the Board do not have blanket immunity from lawsuit, but he is in wrong in thinking that he has pleaded a claim outside of the statutory and common law immunity that they do possess. Mr. Raba is correct in thinking that, in theory, there are claims that could constitute a legally tenable claim against Messrs. Wronecki and Sangmuah and the Board’s employees, but Mr. Raba’s materials reveal that he has no basis to assert any such claims. Mr. Raba’s genuine grievances, which grievances are all associated with how he was treated at several hearings of the Board, do not provide the material facts upon which Mr. Raba could assert a viable legal claim against the Defendants.
11Taken at their best, Mr. Raba’s counterarguments reveal a passionately held belief that he has been wronged by the Defendants, but in my opinion, those beliefs do not amount to any legally tenable claim. If anything, his factum and his pleadings reveal that he may have had grounds to appeal or to seek judicial review of the decisions of the Board that were made in proceedings between Mr. Raba as a tenant and several landlords between 2003 and 2013.
12However, Mr. Raba did not appeal or seek judicial review or his appeals were unsuccessful, and he cannot now sue for damages for his unsuccessful experiences and for his allegations of mistreatment by the Board, its members, and its employees, the unidentified Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2, and Co-Conspirators N.
13As I will illustrate using paragraphs 5 to 25 of his pleading against Mr. Wronecki, set out below, Mr. Raba has not pleaded a legally tenable case against the Board and the other Defendants. Mr. Raba asserts that he has Charter rights and other rights as a Canadian citizen that have been abused but, unfortunately, he does not understand how the Charter operates, and he also misunderstands the operation of tort law and the law of civil procedure.
14Further, the doctrines of stare decisis, res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process, apply to the circumstances of Mr. Raba’s two actions, and these doctrines provide alternative reasons to grant the Defendants’ motions and to dismiss Mr. Raba’s actions.
B. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
15As the following chronology will reveal, Mr. Raba has a history of appearances before the Board and of taking to the Superior Court his grievances about the conduct of the Board members.
16On March 13, 2003, S. Light a member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (the "ORHT"), the Board’s predecessor tribunal, granted the application of Adela Sochaj, Mr. Raba’s landlord, to have him evicted.
17On April 9, 2003, Mr. Raba applied for an order that Adela Sochaj had entered his rental unit illegally, had interfered with his reasonable enjoyment of his residential unit, and had withheld vital services. Tribunal Member Donna McGavin found that although the landlord had illegally entered, none of the other allegations were borne out by the evidence. She ordered that the landlord refrain from entering Mr. Raba’s unit.
18On May 7, 2003, Mr. Raba applied for a finding that Adela Sochaj had harassed him and interfered with his reasonable enjoyment of his residential unit. Board Member Jim Brown dismissed the application on the grounds that it had already been dealt with. Mr. Raba, however, believes that Mr. Wronecki was the presiding member against whom Mr. Raba alleges that he was denied an opportunity to present evidence. Mr. Raba also alleges that Mr. Wronecki stole his documents during the hearing.
19On May 8 and June 13, 2012, Mr. Raba’s then-landlord, Frank Vaccarelli, brought an application before the Board to have Mr. Raba evicted. Mr. Wronecki presided, and Mr. Raba alleges that Mr. Wronecki was biased and intentionally made procedural errors.
20On June 28, 2012, Mr. Wronecki granted an eviction order. Mr. Raba alleges that Mr. Wronecki intentionally made substantive errors.
21On July 5, 2012, Mr. Raba requested a review of Mr. Wronecki's order, but on July 9, 2012, Board member Jean-Paul Pilon denied the request. Mr. Raba alleges that this denial was inappropriate, and that Mr. Pilon disregarded evidence and was biased against him.
22On August 10, 2012, Mr. Raba brought an application for an abatement of rent of approximately $30,000.00 from Mr. Vaccarelli on the grounds that the landlord had failed to meet his maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Mr. Sangmuah was the presiding Board member.
23On August 13, 2012, Mr. Sangmuah dismissed Mr. Raba’s application. Mr. Sangmuah found that there was no breach by the landlord and that Mr. Raba had interfered with the landlord’s efforts to repair minor problems.
24On November 1, 2012, Mr. Raba sued the Board for $1 million complaining about the conduct of Messrs. Wronecki and Sangmuah respectively (the “2012 Action”).
25The Defendants Wronecki and Sangmuah brought a motion to strike the claim in the 2012 Action, which motion was adjourned several times.
26On April 4, 2014, while the Wronecki and Sangmuah motion in the 2012 Action to strike still had not been argued, Mr. Raba issued the two actions that are now before the court. In these actions, he sues Messrs. Wronecki and Sangmuah separately. As noted above, in action CV-14-501568, he sues Mr. Wronecki, the Board, and Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2 and Co-Conspirators N. In action CV-14-501571, he sues Mr. Sangmuah, the Board and Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2 and Co-Conspirators N.
27In the 2014 Action against Mr. Wronecki and others, Mr. Raba alleges that Mr. Wronecki made procedural and substantive errors in the matters decided by Mr. Wronecki. Mr. Raba seeks damages of $300,000 from Mr. Wronecki. He seeks damages of $900,000.00 against the Board in relation to the conduct of the hearings and for destroying and deliberately withholding materials. Mr. Raba also seeks damages from the Defendant Co-Conspirators in the sum of $600,000.00. The Defendant Co-Conspirators are described as being employees or agents of the Board but are not otherwise identified. No specific allegations are made against them.
28In the 2014 Action against Mr. Sangmuah and others, Mr. Raba alleges that Mr. Sangmuah made procedural and substantive errors in the matters decided by Mr. Sangmuah. Mr. Raba seeks damages of $300,000 from Mr. Sangmuah. He seeks damages of $900,000.00 against the Board in relation to the conduct of the hearings and for destroying and deliberately withholding materials. Mr. Raba also seeks damages from the Defendant Co-Conspirators in the sum of $600,000.00. The Defendant Co-Conspirators are described as being employees or agents of the Board but are not otherwise identified. No specific allegations are made against them.
29On April 9, 2014, the Defendants’ motion to strike the 2012 Action was heard. Madam Justice Carole Brown heard the motion, and she reserved judgment.
30On April 30, 2014, Justice Brown released her decision, and she dismissed Mr. Raba’s 2012 Action on the basis that: (a) the Board is not a suable entity; and, (b) Mr. Raba’s action constituted a collateral attack on the decisions of the Board and was, therefore, an abuse of process. Further, Justice Brown found that the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, did not comply with the rules for pleadings, and that it should be struck in its entirety without leave to amend. See Raba v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2014 ONSC 2599, aff’d 2014 ONCA 864.
31On December 1, 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from Justice Brown’s order.
C. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
32Apart from appeals and judicial review proceedings, the Board is not an entity capable of being sued and, therefore, Mr. Raba’s action against the Board should be dismissed.
33The Board's enabling statute, the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not constitute the Board as a body corporate, nor does it endow the Board with the capacity to be sued, either explicitly or by necessary implication. Under its enabling statute, the Board has the power to hear and determine applications on residential property rental issues. The Board is a legal entity, a statutory body, exercising a quasi-judicial function, and it cannot be sued for actions taken in relation to applications before it.
34See: Raba v. Landlord and Tenant Board, supra; Tal v. Ontario, [2011] O.J. No. 1791 (S.C.J.); Ontario v. Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. (c.o.b. EcoFlo Ontario), 2010 ONCA 501; York Advertising Ltd. v. Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 949 (S.C.J.); Hollinger Bus Lines Ltd. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, [1952] O.J. No. 62 (C.A.).
35Further, and in any event, Mr. Raba’s actions CV-14-501568 and CV-14-501571 should be struck as an abuse of process.
36Bringing, or in this case at bar continuing, actions to determine issues already determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding and an abuse of process: Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1987), 1987 172 (ON SC), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.J.), and Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77.
37Mr. Raba’s actions were pre-emptive re-litigation of the matters that were being decided by Justice Brown and that have now been decided against Mr. Raba by the affirmation of her eventual order by the Court of Appeal. The 2012 Action against Messrs. Wronecki and Sangmuah has been found to be an impermissible collateral attack against the Board’s decision. The 2012 Action against Messrs. Wronecki and Sangmuah has been found not to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Actions CV-14-501568 and CV-14-501571 are re-litigation of matters that have already been decided against Mr. Raba. Thus, the actions are an abuse of process.
38In any event, Mr. Raba, has not pleaded a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants, nor has he pleaded the material facts that would deny the Defendants their statutory or common law immunity from liability for their actions as members or employees of the Board, which is a Commission public body under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.
39Persons exercising judicial functions in court proceedings are exempt from all civil liability for anything done or said by them in their judicial capacity. The protection does not, however, extend to acts purely extra-judicial or alien to the judicial duty and, therefore, a judge is not protected for acts outside of his or her judicial function. The judicial immunity applies to all courts of justice and to other tribunals having similar attributes, and the immunity is such that no allegation even that the adjudicator’s acts or words complained of were done or spoken mala fide, maliciously, corruptly, or without reasonable or probable cause suffices to found an action against the adjudicator.
40See: Morier v. Rivard, 1985 26 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 1; Baryluk (c.o.b. Wyrd Sisters) v. Campbell, [2008] O.J. No. 4279 (S.C.J.); Deep v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 5248 at paras. 60-62 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2011 ONCA 196; Dyce v. Ontario, [2007] O.J. No. 2142 (S.C.J.); Crowe v. Canada (Supreme Court, Judge), [2007] F.C.J. No. 1570; L.M.K. v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services, [1996] O.J. No. 812 (Gen. Div.); Kopyto v. Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division), [1995] O.J. No. 601 (Gen. Div.); Unterreiner v. Wilson (1982), 1982 1814 (ON SC), 40 O.R. (2d) 197 (H.C.J.) aff’d (1983), 1983 1968 (ON CA), 41 O.R. (2d) 472 (C.A.), Re Clendenning and Board of Police for City of Belleville (1976), 1976 696 (ON SC), 15 O.R. (2d) 97 (Div. Ct.); Fray v. Blackburn (1863), 3 B. & S. 576 at p. 578.
41Once the adjudicator honestly entertains the belief that he or she has jurisdiction, he or she will not be liable, unless it is shown that the adjudicator was acting knowing that he or she does not have any jurisdiction: Morier v. Rivard, supra at paras. 85-110 (S.C.C.); Baryluk (c.o.b. Wyrd Sisters) v. Campbell, supra.
42A plaintiff cannot successfully circumvent judicial immunity by merely pleading bald allegations of misconduct including excess of jurisdiction, abuse of process, malice or bad faith because the immunity would be meaningless and judicial independence would be impaired due to the threat of personal liability by the simple plea of malicious intent: Tsai v. Klug, 2005 19788 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 2889 (S.C.J.), aff’d (2006), 2006 4942 (ON CA), 207 O.A.C. 225 (C.A.); Pispidikis v. Scroggie, 2002 23209 (ON SC), [2002] O.J. No. 5081 at paras. 37-38, (S.C.J.), affd 2003 27059 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 4830 (C.A.); Royer v. Mignault, [1988] A.Q. No. 407 at paras. 5-6 (Que. C.A.).
43As for statutory immunity, subsection 232(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 states:
232 (1) No proceeding for damages shall be commenced against an investigator, an inspector, a member of the Board or a public servant employed under Part III of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Act or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of such a duty or power.
44Mr. Raba submits in his factum that he has sued the Board and its members for damages under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, which statute identifies or treats the Board and its members as sueable entities protected from liability of acts done in good faith in the exercise of their duties. He submits, therefore, that s. 232(1) of the Act does not give the Board and its members immunity from liability for acting outside the scope of their authority.
45During oral argument, Mr. Raba indicated that his court actions were not a collateral attack against Mr. Wronecki’s decision because he actually did not care about the Board’s decision as he was planning to vacate his rented premises anyway. He said that his complaint was about the manner of how he was treated by the Defendants, which he says was unfair and that denied him the fundamental justice that is the entitlement of Canadian citizens.
46As noted above, Mr. Raba is correct in thinking that the Board is a legal entity; however, he is incorrect in thinking that it is a suable one.
47Mr. Raba is further correct in thinking that Messrs. Wronecki and Sangmuah and Co-Conspirator 1, Co-Conspirator 2, and Co-Conspirators N do not have blanket immunity from lawsuit. The protection provided by s. 232 (1) provides immunity “for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Act or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of such a duty or power.”
48The problem for Mr. Raba is that he makes bald allegations of bad faith but does not plead any material facts that would count for an act by the Defendants not done in good faith in the performance of any duty or the exercise of any power under the Residential Tenancies Act. Some of Mr. Raba’s complaints concern the activities of third parties but all the complaints concern what happened during hearings before the Board and - most significantly - the complaints concern the Board’s adjudicative function and its control of its own hearings.
49By way of illustration, paragraphs 5 to 25 of the Statement of Claim against Mr. Wronecki, which I shall set out in full below, describe what is alleged to have occurred at a hearing on May 8, 2012 at which Mr. Wronecki presided. These paragraphs are an example of the nature of the material facts that Mr. Raba relies on to advance a cause of action against the Defendants and to negate the Defendants’ statutory and common law immunity. Paragraphs 5 to 25 state:
On May 8, 2012, the plaintiff appeared at the LTB for the Landlord Frank Vaccarelli (“opposing party”) … It was heard and adjourned to a date to be set by the LTB, later determined to be June 13, 2012. The presiding LTB member was defendant member Wronecki.
On May 8, 2012, the plaintiff requested an adjournment of the opposing party’s [Landlord’s Application] due to the fact that the plaintiff had a [Raba Application] pending hearing date against the opposing party since May 2, 2012. Plaintiff submitted via written note to defendant member Wronecki that it would be unfair to the Plaintiff’s [Raba Application] not to be heard and determined first. Defendant member Wronecki denied plaintiff’s request without explanation.
On May 8, 2012, the plaintiff’s paralegal representative gave plaintiff a letter requesting an adjournment of the [Landlord’s Application] which was given to the defendant Wronecki and he denied it. Defendant member Wronecki’s denial was unreasonable and unjust because the adjournment was need for the plaintiff to secure legal representation as outlined in the said letter.
On May 8, 2012, due to defendant Wronecki’s denial of the plaintiff’s request for an adjournment, the [Landlord’s Application] commenced.
On May 8, 2012, defendant member Wronecki wrongfully asked opposing party what happened on May 2, 2012 with respect to the plaintiff’s unrelated and irrelevant [Raba Application] which was currently being heard.
On May 8, 2012, the [Landlord] responded to the defendant member Wronecki’s aforementioned request and discussed the unrelated and irrelevant [Raba Application]. Defendant member Wronecki was particularly interested in knowing if both the plaintiff’s and the [Landlord’s] application were related to behaviour. Plaintiff asserts that defendant Wronecki erred by wrongfully utilizing and relying on information contained in the plaintiff’s unrelated [Raba Application] in determining the [Landlord’s Application].
On May 8, 2012, the plaintiff advised defendant member Wronecki that the plaintiff needed professional legal representation to effectively argue [the Landlord’s Application]. Defendant Wronecki denied plaintiff’s request and forced plaintiff to act on his own behalf with respect to the [Landlord’s Application.]
On May 8, 2012, the defendant Wronecki, without warning or explanation, stopped the [Landlord’s Application] and inexplicably commenced hearing other [Board] applications. Accordingly, the plaintiff left the [Board] hearing room due to the belief that [Landlord’s Application] had been terminated.
On May 8, 2012, [the Landlord’s Application] continued soon thereafter. Defendant member Wronecki stated for the record [that] the plaintiff who was here earlier and was unsuccessful [in] obtaining an adjournment is not currently present to represent himself at this time which is 2:55 p.m. and the plaintiff is not currently present in the [Board] hearing room. The plaintiff was present in the [Board] hearing room, and it is inexplicable why defendant Wronecki did not acknowledge plaintiff’s physical presence. The failure of the defendant member Wronecki to recognize that the plaintiff was actually present in the [Board] hearing room at the time, calls into question the mental capacity and capability of the defendant member Wronecki to effectively adjudicate the [Landlord’s Application.]
On May 8, 2012, defendant member Wronecki commenced the [Landlord’s Application] and asked opposing party how many witnesses they had. [The Landlord] stated that they had 2 witnesses. Defendant member Wronecki stated for the record that the plaintiff had abandoned his fight with respect to the [Landlord’s Application] and as such, character witnesses were probably not necessary.
On May 8, 2012, shortly after defendant member Wronecki stated for the record that the plaintiff was NOT present in the [Board’s] hearing room. A brief moment later, the defendant member Wronecki inexplicably acknowledged that the plaintiff was PRESENT in the … hearing room and advised plaintiff that the [Landlord’s Application] was about to be heard.
On May 8, 2012 defendant member Wronecki failed to recognize fatal deficiencies in the [Landlord’s Application], insofar as the [Landlord’s Application] was incomplete and incomprehensible. Defendant member Wronecki knew, or ought to have known this, and he should have dismissed the [Landlord’s Application] at the outset of the hearing and failed to do so. Plaintiff asserts, defendant member Wronecki wrongfully and inexplicably discontinued the [Landlord’s Application] without notice or explanation and should have dismissed it.
On May 8, 2012 opposing party called their first witness for the [Landlord’s Application], a female tenant (“female witness 1”) in the plaintiff’s building. Female witness 1 also stated she suffered from paranoia and feared men in the plaintiff’s building. Female witness 1 also stated the plaintiff advised her not to allow her dog to run on the property unleashed. Female witness 1 added she feared the plaintiff because plaintiff was a big macho guy, and because plaintiff lived across the [sic] from the laundry room. Defendant member Wronecki erred in finding against the plaintiff in the [Landlord’s Application] by adopting and relying on female witness 1’s testimony in defendant member Wronecki’s adverse decisions against plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts, defendant member Wronecki clearly demonstrated his bias and prejudice against the plaintiff by adopting and relying on female witness 1’s bald, frivolous and vexatious allegations in finding against the plaintiff.
On May 8, 2012, during the [Landlord’s Application] the plaintiff had a seizure. Defendant member Wronecki asked the plaintiff what was happening and plaintiff advised he passed out and was having a seizure. An LTB security guard approached the plaintiff and asked if he was ok. Plaintiff said no. Defendant member Wronecki asked opposing party if he was aware of the plaintiff’s medical history, instead of asking the plaintiff directly. Opposing party stated he did not know, but offered a speculative reason. Instead of assisting the plaintiff with medical assistance, defendant member Wronecki reprimanded plaintiff for having a seizure in the [Landlord’s Application]. Defendant member Wronecki characterized this situation as a “short break” for the record. Plaintiff asserts: the callous indifference and behavior by defendant member Wronecki, with respect to the plaintiff’s medical condition, further establishes defendant member Wronecki’s bias and prejudice towards the plaintiff which manifested itself in his adverse decision against the plaintiff in the [Landlord’s Application].
On May 8, 2012 defendant member Wronecki prevented and obstructed the plaintiff from cross examining female witness 1 by threating [sic] to eject the plaintiff from the [Landlord’s Application]. Plaintiff took the defendant member Wronecki’s direction and did not ask female witness 1 further questions, which prevented the plaintiff from effectively arguing and defending himself in the [Landlord’s Application]. Defendant member Wronecki repeated this threat of eviction to the plaintiff numerous times throughout the [Landlord’s Application] which thwarted the plaintiff’s right to cross-examine female witness 1, thus denying plaintiff due process and fundamental justice.
On May 8, 2012 the opposing party called their second witness at the [Landlord’s Application], who was the superintendent at the plaintiff’s building and was employed by the opposing party (“male witness”). The male witness provided testimony confirming the plaintiff did nothing wrong other than live across the from the laundry room. The male witness further provided hearsay evidence which was wrongfully allowed and adopted and relied upon by defendant member Wronecki to support female witness 1’s allegations against the plaintiff. The most damaging hearsay evidence that the male witness could offer against the plaintiff was irrelevant, erroneous and incomprehensible with respect to the explanation about the laundry room. Defendant member [W]ronecki erred in the [Landlord’s Application] by accepting, relying upon and giving weight to the male witness’s testimony in the defendant member Wronecki’s adverse decision in the [Landlord’s Application] against the plaintiff.
On May 8, 2012 plaintiff, while cross-examining the male witness with respect to a question regarding the laundry room, tried to present a video to refresh the male witness recollection. Defendant member Wronecki refused to permit the plaintiff from doing so, and stated the plaintiff would be given sufficient time to present this evidence later in the [Landlord’s Application] in this regard, but never did. Defendant member Wronecki breached his undertaking to the plaintiff by not allowing plaintiff to present the aforementioned video evidence- ever. Had the plaintiff known this, plaintiff would have continued with his cross examination of the male witness and secured the necessary evidence, via oral testimony in lieu of, and in conjunction with, the video evidence, but was effectively prevented from doing so by defendant member Wronecki.
On May 8, 2012 plaintiff, while cross-examining the male witness with respect to matters other than the laundry room situation, defendant member Wronecki wrongfully prevented the plaintiff from asking the male witness essential questions, and prevented the mal[e] witness from answering the plaintiff’s questions; the answers to which, would have supported the plaintiff’s case against the [Landlord’s Application]. Plaintiff asserts, defendant member Wronecki intentionally and repeatedly obstructed the plaintiff throughout the [Landlord’s Application] in order to prevent the plaintiff from securing evidence on the record which plaintiff could have used for an appeal of his decision. In addition, defendant member Wronecki provided an undertaking to the plaintiff that plaintiff would be granted sufficient time and opportunity to effectively present his case at the [Landlord’s Application], but failed to do so.
On May 8, 2012 the plaintiff, while cross-examining the male witness was interrupted by defendant member Wronecki and advised the plaintiff that the [Landlord’s Application] had ended and needed to be continued to a new date, somewhere in June, 2012. Without explanation, defendant member Wronecki advised the opposing party it was not necessary for opposing party to bring their witnesses for the continued [Landlord’s Application] date. Plaintiff objected and was cut off by defendant member Wronecki and prevented from saying anything else on the matter for the record with respect to the new [Landlord’s Application] date; other than, plaintiff was unable to attend until after June 15, 2012. Defendant member Wronecki ordered the new date for the [Landlord’s Application] to be June 13, 2012. Defendant [member] Wronecki knew, or ought to have known this date would be onerous for the plaintiff and it was, insofar as, the LTB had scheduled the plaintiff’s return of his [Tenant’s Application] for June 13, 2012. As such; plaintiff asserts, it was patently unfair and prejudicial to force the plaintiff to argue both the [Landlord’s Application] and the plaintiff’s [Tenant’s Application] on the same day, as defendant member Wronecki did, especially in light of the plaintiff’s health problems. Plaintiff asserts, defendant Wronecki’s actions unequivocally establishes a prima facie case of prejudice, bias against the plaintiff and demonstrates a guilty mind, insofar as, defendant member Wronecki pre-determined the [Landlord’s Application] against the plaintiff by when he told the opposing party not to bring back opposing party’s witnesses knowing that the plaintiff had not yet finished his cross-examination of said witnesses.
On May 8, 2012 the defendant member Wronecki directed the opposing party not to bring their witnesses at the [Landlord’sApplication] for the continued [Landlord’s Application]. Accordingly, defendant member Wronecki knew, or ought to have known that the plaintiff, and or his legal representative would be totally unprepared should they appear. They did appear. As a result, plaintiff and his paralegal were totally unprepared to cross examine the witnesses that appeared [at the] continued [Landlord’s Application].
On May 8, 2012 defendant member Wronecki provided the plaintiff with an undertaking, wherein he assured the plaintiff he would be afforded the opportunity to present plaintiff’s evidence at the continued [Landlord’s Application] to be heard June 13, 2012. Defendant member Wronecki breached his undertaking to the plaintiff as previously noted.
50To summarize, paragraphs 5 to 25 plead that:
Mr. Raba asked for an adjournment because he wished his outstanding Application against the Landlord heard at the same time as the Landlord’s Application and because Mr. Raba, who was represented by a para-legal, wished to retain a lawyer; however, the adjournment was refused.
When the hearing commenced, Mr. Wronecki asked some questions about Mr. Raba’s Application, which questions Mr. Raba says were irrelevant and improper.
During the hearing, Mr. Wronecki stood the Landlord’s Application down to deal with some other Board matters, and Mr. Raba thought the Landlord’s Application had ended, and he went out of the hearing room. When Mr. Raba returned to the hearing room, Mr. Wronecki initially failed to acknowledge Mr. Raba’s presence, which Mr. Raba says casts doubt on Mr. Wronecki’s mental competence to preside. Then, Mr. Raba says that Mr. Wronecki inexplicably acknowledged his presence and resumed the hearing.
During the resumed hearing, Mr. Raba pleads that among other things: Mr. Wronecki failed to recognize the deficiencies in the Landlord’s case; Mr. Wronecki erred in relying on the evidence of the first witness, a female tenant; Mr. Wronecki failed to respond appropriately when Mr. Raba became seriously ill during the proceeding; Mr. Wronecki interfered with Mr. Raba’s cross-examination of the first witness, which Mr. Raba says denied him due process and fundamental justice; Mr. Wronecki wrongfully admitted and relied on the hearsay evidence of the second witness; Mr. Wronecki interfered with the cross-examination of the second witness; and Mr. Wronecki directed that the Landlord did not need to call certain witnesses.
51In my opinion, paragraphs 5 to 25 reveal that all of Mr. Raba’s complaints or causes of action are sourced in what Mr. Wronecki did in the exercise or intended exercise of his duties and powers under this Residential Tenancies Act. They were acts done by Mr. Wronecki while adjudicating the applications involving Mr. Raba. There is nothing in paragraphs 5 to 25 to suggest an abuse of power and nothing to suggest material facts supporting bad faith. There is nothing in paragraphs 5 to 25 that reveals that some Charter right was violated. A reading of the statements of claim reveals that Mr. Raba does not understand the difference between being an accused in criminal proceedings and being a respondent in administrative and civil proceedings before the Board.
52It is possible that Mr. Wronecki made evidentiary, procedural, or substantive errors, but those errors would expose Mr. Wronecki’s decision to judicial or appellate review; not expose Mr. Wronecki personally to a claim for damages.
53The above review of paragraphs 5 to 25 is just an example. A review of the pleadings in both 2014 actions demonstrates that Mr. Raba has not pleaded a legally viable claim against the Defendants and that his complaints are such that no purpose would be served by allowing him leave to deliver amended claims.
D. CONCLUSION
54For the above reasons, I grant the Defendants’ motions.
55If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they may make submissions in writing beginning with the Defendants’ submissions within 20 days of the release of these Reasons for Decision followed by Mr. Raba’s submissions within a further 20 days.
56The Defendants may take out an order without Mr. Raba’s approval as to form and content.
Perell, J.
Released: January 2, 2015
CITATION: Raba v. Wronecki, 2015 ONSC 20
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-501568
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-501571
DATE: 20150102
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TOMASZ RABA
Plaintiff
– and –
KAROL WRONECKI, AND LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AND UNNAMED CO-CONSPIRATORS EMPLOYED BY AND AGENTS FOR LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CO-CONSPIRATOR 1, AND CO-CONSPIRATOR 2, AND CO-CONSPIRATORS N
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
TOMASZ RABA
Plaintiff
– and –
EGYA NDAYINANSE SANGMUAH AND LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AND UNNAMED CO-CONSPIRATORS EMPLOYED BY AND AGENTS FOR LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CO-CONSPIRATOR 1, AND CO-CONSPIRATOR 2, AND CO-CONSPIRATORS N
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
PERELL J.
Released: January 2, 2015