Court File and Parties

CITATION: Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al. 2015 ONSC 2563

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-522755

DATE: 20150420

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: GIULIANO SCADUTO, Applicant

AND:

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, Respondents

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: April 20, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This application was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of lawyers for the Attorney General under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] In this application, the applicant seeks an order compelling the Law Society of Upper Canada to fulfil its statutory mandate by barring a convicted criminal from lecturing the Ontario Bar. He also seeks damages for the Law Society’s alleged failure to fulfil its statutory duties.

[3] There are two bases for the applicant’s proceeding. The first is that, as a member of the public, he is offended that the Law Society has allowed a prominent person with a US criminal conviction to speak at Law Society events. Second, the applicant is also concerned that the Law Society failed to assist him in prosecuting his Workers’ Compensation case in which the applicant was unsuccessful right up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[4] On its face, the applicant’s proceeding appears to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. It is an abuse of process to try to bring a claim to re-litigate a case that has already been decided. In addition, there does not appear to be any legal basis to sue the Law Society or the Province concerning guest speakers at Law Society events. There is no private law right to sue for damages for breach of statutory duty. Neither does the plaintiff appear to have any standing to seek to enforce his view of Law Society Act.

[5] The plaintiff should be provided with a notice that the court is considering dismissing this application and invited to provide written reasons why the action should be allowed to proceed.

[6] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the applicant’s application is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43[^1];

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this application excepting only the applicant’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the applicant and counsel for each of the respondents by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: April 20, 2015

[^1]: See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100 at para.