CITATION: Brown v. Fred Victor Organization, 2015 ONSC 2728

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-525102

DATE: 20150427

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: GARY DAVID BROWN, a.k.a. GARY DAVID ROBERT BROWN, Plaintiff

AND:

FRED VICTOR ORGANIZATION, WYNN GROUP OF COMPANIES, ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, all the past and present assigns and agents thereof and all the heirs and successors of same, Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

HEARD: April 24, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of the lawyers for the defendants Fred Victor Organization and Wynn Group of Companies under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The statement of claim appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The plaintiff’s complaints are not readily discernable. Most are phrased as failures by the various defendants to respond to offers to settle sent to them by the plaintiff. That is not a basis to sue someone. The statement of claim does not disclose actionable complaints as pleaded. The union defendant is not a suable entity under the Rights of Labour Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.R.33 in any event.

[3] Mr. Brown is bringing serial claims in the Superior Court that are patently inappropriate. It is vexatious to sue for millions of dollars of aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages or for apologies or other relief that the court cannot award.

[4] The court cannot provide legal advice to Mr. Brown. He can seek legal assistance from:

Pro Bono Law, at 393 University Ave., Room 110, Toronto;

[5] Mr. Brown should be invited to make submissions as to why this lawsuit should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1 as being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

[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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff’s action 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 action excepting only the plaintiff’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 plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: April 27, 2015

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