CITATION: Gledhill v. TPSB et al., 2015 ONSC 2418

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-523313

DATE: 20150414

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Mark Gledhill, Plaintiff

AND:

Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”); City of Toronto Police Services-Det. Debbie Harris #4847, PC 31 Brent Larmour #10393, PC Phillip Romain #5394; PC Christopher Drake #9176, PC Ronald MacKay #99680, PC11 Daniel Doyle #8799, Det. Alexander Wallace #9800, Det. C. Ricci, #5156, Sgt. J. Douglas #1060, PC1 Matthew Dodds #10295, PC1 Balachor #99798 (“MOS”); Better Living Homes, Inc (“BLH”); and Jeffrey Rana (“JR”); Dwayne Whitford (“DW”); Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”); City of Toronto-Landlord & Tenant Board Tribunal Member Jean-Paul Pilon (“MOT”); The Ministry of the Attorney General (“MAG”) and Superior Court of Justice and Joseph Doria (“MOF”), Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

HEARD: March 30, 2015

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated March 30, 2015, reported as 2015 ONSC 2068, I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action. Under the provisions of rule 2.1 .01 (1) the court may dismiss a proceeding if it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[2] The action appears to largely duplicate an action commenced by Mr. Gledhill under Court File No. CV-14-499101. That action has been stayed by order of Corbett J. dated May 1, 2014. Mr. Gledhill’s motion to lift the stay was dismissed by Pollak J. on October 22, 2014. A subsequent motion to lift the stay was dismissed by Morgan J. on March 20, 2015 (See: 2015 ONSC 1808). It is patently an abuse of process to commence a new action to try to avoid the effect of subsisting orders in another action on the same underlying facts and issues. (See: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497 at para. 14).

[3] Mr. Gledhill delivered a document that appears to be several pages from an amended statement of claim in this action. On the back sheet of the amended statement of claim, he has added in handwriting the word “submissions”. Pages that Mr. Gledhill has included are similar to pages 75 through 79 of the statement of claim. However, I note that these pages are numbered 45, 46, 53, 54, 55 and 56 Mr. Gledhill’s “submissions”. Moreover, the title of proceeding on the amended statement of claim has added a number of parties who are not listed on the statement of claim. It is not clear if Mr. Gledhill believes that he has amended his pleading despite stay of proceedings in my March 30, 2015 endorsement. Moreover, to add parties would have required an order that does not appear to have been obtained.

[4] Nothing in the revised pleading submitted by Mr. Gledhill adds any clarity to his pleading or explains why the case should not be dismissed in light of paragraph 2 above.

[5] On reviewing the statement of claim and Mr. Gledhill’s submissions, it is apparent to me that the claims on its face are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. It cannot succeed against the parties listed and it is an improper, vexatious attempt to continue litigating after successive decisions of judges of this court have dismissed the underlying claims.

[6] The action is therefore dismissed. Costs if sought are payable by the plaintiff to the defendants after assessment.

[7] The court dispenses with any need for Mr. Gledhill’s approval of the form and content of the formal order. The registrar shall send a copy of this endorsement to the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by regular mail and by email for those whose email addresses he has. The registrar shall serve a copy of the formal order on the plaintiff as soon as possible after it is taken out by a defendant.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: April 14, 2015