Court File and Parties

Citation: Gebremariam v. Arci et al, 2015 ONSC 2121

Court File No.: CV-14-507115

Date: 2015-04-01

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Tadesse Gebremariam, Plaintiff

And: Loretta Arci, Kevin O’Grady and The Law Society of Upper Canada, Defendants

Before: Mr. Justice Graeme Mew

Counsel: Tadesse Gebremariam, In Person Ian Epstein, for the Defendants

Heard: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] The plaintiff sued the Law Society of Upper Canada and two of its officials in connection with various misdeeds which, he alleges, led to a decision and order of the Law Society Tribunal dated 13 July 2012 suspending the plaintiff’s licence as a paralegal for one month, such suspension to continue indefinitely until certain conditions were fulfilled.

[2] On 22 January 2015, I heard a motion brought by the defendants seeking an order, pursuant to Rule 21.01(1)(b) striking out the statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, without leave being granted to the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim. For reasons which I gave orally on 22 January 2015, I granted the motion. I indicated that I could be spoken to if any difficulties arose in relation to the taking out of a formal order.

[3] I was subsequently notified that the plaintiff has not given his approval as to the form and content of a draft order prepared by the defendants’ lawyer. I therefore wrote to the parties, directing that if the plaintiff has an objection to the form and content of the draft order he should make such objection in writing by no later than 30 March 2015. I indicated that upon receipt of such objection I would then either deal with the matter on the basis of the written objection or, if I deemed it necessary to do so, would arrange an appointment with the parties to attend before me to settle the terms of the order.

[4] The plaintiff has provided a two page written submission dated 28 March 2015 (received 29 March 2015) setting out his objections.

[5] Having carefully reviewed the plaintiff’s objections, they appear to consist almost entirely of a reiteration of many of the arguments which were made by the plaintiff during the course of the hearing of the motion.

[6] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the draft order prepared by the defendants’ lawyer is satisfactory as to form and content and I have, accordingly, signed it.

[7] Mr. Gebremariam’s letter did raise one other matter. At the hearing of the motion he said that he had brought his own motion to strike the statement of defence. His motion record had not made it into the materials that I was provided with in advance of the hearing. However, there being no objection by the defendants, I allowed Mr. Gebremariam to file a copy of his motion record and to make submissions on the relief sought. I have subsequently verified that Mr. Gebremariam’s motion was, in fact, properly filed.

[8] My oral reasons for decision did not make reference to Mr. Gebremariam’s motion because, in light of my decision on the defendants’ motion to strike out the statement of claim, without leave to amend, the plaintiff’s motion became academic. Mr. Gebremariam asks that I formally endorse his motion record so that he can appeal my order. I have, accordingly, done so today.

[9] I would add that had I not struck out the statement of claim, I would not, in any event, have granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the statement of defence. The defendants served and filed a pro forma statement of defence in the face of a refusal by the plaintiff to waive the need for the defendants to file a statement of defence pending determination of the defendants’ motion to strike the statement of claim. That was an appropriate step for the defendants to take in the circumstances.

Graeme Mew J.

Date: 01 April 2015