SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-527499 DATE: 20150525
B E T W E E N:
HURONTARIO TRAVEL CENTRE
Plaintiff
-AND-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in Right of Ontario as represented by THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
READ: May 25, 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 counsel for the defendant under subrule 2.1.01(6).
[2] The plaintiff sues the Crown for malicious prosecution concerning provincial offence charges against the plaintiff that were withdrawn in 2000. In 2006 Dunn J. of this court dismissed the plaintiff’s first claim for malicious prosecution and other relief arising out of the unsuccessful prosecution. King v. Ontario, 2006 CarswellOnt 653 (SCJ). That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal as reported at 2009 ONCA 652. The plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected as reported at 2010 CarswellOnt 1884 (SCC).
[3] The plaintiff then sued a Crown employee for negligent investigation leading to the same withdrawn charges. That action was dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata by decision of McEwen J. of this court dated April 30, 2013 as reported at 2013 ONSC 2761. Res judicata is a rule of law that prevents a person from bringing a second lawsuit on a claim that has already been subject to a prior final decision of the court. The decision of McEwen J. was upheld by the Court of Appeal on May 15, 2014 as reported at 2014 ONCA 405.
[4] The plaintiff then tried again and claimed that the Crown should be required to proceed with the charges that it withdrew. That proceeding was dismissed by Duncan J. of the Ontario Court of Justice on November 24, 2014. Judge Duncan also prohibited the plaintiff from bringing further proceedings in that court concerning the initial charges except with leave of the Local Administrative Judge of the Court or his designate.
[5] Judge Duncan found the following at paras. 26 and 32 of his reasons:
But Mr. King argues (I think) that the taint from and lack of exoneration in respect of the earlier proceedings has prevented his re-instatement as a travel agent. The short answer is that he has not applied. Further, I suspect that the unchallenged criminal convictions for fraud in the conduct of his travel business in 1996 would be a more likely impediment to re-instatement than the withdrawn Provincial charges that are the subject of this application.
It is apparent from the history that Mr. King is determined to doggedly pursue this matter. He has taken up the time of the court and forced response and attendance by counsel for the Ministry who has no doubt spent many hours sorting through and making sense of all the material and preparing his brief. All on the public’s dime. King’s re-litigation of this single obsession has already been determined to be frivolous and vexatious by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal and barred by the doctrine of “cause of action estoppel”.
[6] It appears on the face of the pleading that the plaintiff’s claim is an abuse of process. The plaintiff should be invited to make written submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed at this time.
[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 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 defendant by email if it has their email addresses.
________________________________ F.L. Myers J.
Date: May 25, 2015
[1] See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100 at para.