Court File and Parties

CITATION: Xiang v. Whirlpool, 2015 ONSC 2582

COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-382057

DATE: 20150420

RE: CAO (JASON) ZHI XIANG, Plaintiff

AND:

WHIRLPOOL CORP. AND WHIRLPOOL CANADA, Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: April 20, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement dated February 25, 2015, 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 plaintiff’s motion scheduled for March 4, 2015. I also stayed that motion pending the outcome of this written hearing.

[2] The plaintiff’s action was dismissed by summary judgment granted by Justice C. Brown with reasons dated April 6, 2011, reported at 2011 ONSC 2151. Justice Brown held that the plaintiff did not have a valid legal claim against the defendants.

[3] The plaintiff then brought a motion to try to continue his lawsuit. The motion was dismissed by order of Matlow J. dated February 26, 2014. Matlow J. told Mr. Cao that “This action was dismissed by the judgment of Madam Justice Brown dated March 14/11”.

[4] The plaintiff delivered a Notice of Motion dated January 27, 2015 scheduling a motion before a judge on March 4, 2015. The motion is for an order requiring the defendants to provide discovery by way of written questions and answers under Rule 35. This is the motion that I stayed pending this endorsement.

[5] I have now received that plaintiff’s submission dated March 24, 2015. Mr. Cao argues that the defendants have spy computers next door and have been waging e-combat against him for nine years. He wants to negotiate a settlement and believes that written examination for discovery will gauge the defendants’ strength and encourage settlement.

[6] The plaintiff does not seem to accept that this lawsuit has ended. He believes that Justice Brown only dismissed a motion.

[7] Paragraph 1 of the formal Judgment dated March 14, 2011 signed by Justice Brown says:

THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this action be and hereby is dismissed.

[8] That means that the lawsuit is over.

[9] Although Mr. Cao has a number of complaints against the defendants, the court has considered Mr. Cao’s evidence and has ruled that he cannot continue to sue the defendants. The ruling by Justice Brown is final and binding.

[10] Mr. Cao is not allowed to try to keep suing these defendants.

[11] The motion brought by the plaintiff seeks to re-litigate a matter that has already been decided. As such it is an abuse of process. Resort to Rule 2.1 is justified on the face of the pleadings. This is confirmed by the content of Mr. Cao’s submissions.

[12] Mr. Cao’s motion for discovery is dismissed. It may not be scheduled for hearing. It too is over now.

[13] The registrar shall send a copy of this endorsement to Mr. Cao by mail and to counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses. The registrar is to serve the formal order on Mr. Cao by mail as required by Rule 2.1.01(7).

[14] The defendants are entitled to an order for payment of their costs, if demanded, by Mr. Cao forthwith after assessment. I dispense with any requirement for the plaintiff’s approval of the form or content of the formal order.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: April 20, 2015