Lee v. Future Bakery Limited et al., 2015 ONSC 3208

COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-402872
DATE: 20150520

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

JOUNGKWANG LEE

Plaintiff

-AND-

FUTURE BAKERY LIMITED and BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: May 19, 2015

endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.02 following receipt of a written request of counsel for the defendants under subrule 2.1.01(6) and 2.1.02(2).

[2] This is a wrongful dismissal action commenced in 2010. The plaintiff chose to argue the issue of whether he was terminated with just cause under the Employment Insurance regime. He was unsuccessful and sought judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada. He was unsuccessful both at the trial level and at the Federal Court of Appeal.

[3] In the meantime, this action was dismissed for delay under Rule 48 by the registrar on September 17, 2012. Master Brott rejected the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the action by order dated February 27, 2014.

[4] The plaintiff has now brought a motion in this court that is scheduled for July 23, 2015. The two volumes of material filed by the plaintiff do not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. I cannot tell what he seeks or why. Evidence is not properly supported by sworn affidavit. It is not clear if the plaintiff is trying to appeal from Master Brott’s decision or if he is trying to do something else. An appeal would not proceed as a motion in this court in any event.

[5] Mr. Lee should seek free legal advice on this matter from Law Help Ontario, 393 University Avenue, Room 110, Toronto, ON, M5G 1E6, Telephone: 416-628-3552.

[6] On its face the motion brought by the plaintiff appears to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Moreover, it bears the hallmarks of a claim to which the abbreviated process of Rule 2.1 should apply. Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497 at para 17. The plaintiff should be offered the opportunity to explain why his motion should not be dismissed at this stage.

[7] 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 motion scheduled for July 23, 2015;

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

c. The motion date of July 23, 2015 is released. The motion can be rescheduled if the stay is lifted;

d. 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);

e. 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: May 20, 2015

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