SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

CITATION: Pilieci v. The Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2015 ONSC 3298
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526490
DATE: 20150525

B E T W E E N:

VINCENZO PILIECI

Plaintiff

-AND-

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO; WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD (WSIB); ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE (OPP)

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 defendants under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The plaintiff appears to be trying to sue the defendants concerning the manner in which another lawsuit before the court was handled by court staff. In that case, the plaintiff noted WSIB in default. A Master ordered that the noting in default be set aside. WSIB then, allegedly, filed its statement of defence without taking out a formal order. The plaintiff wants to appeal the Master’s order but says that he was not allowed to file his Notice of Appeal by court staff due to the absence of a formal order. He then complains that his effort to record a conversation with a court officer was thwarted. He complains that the lawyer for WSIB in his action admitted to an error in his client’s Affidavit of Documents and that a witness lied in examinations for discovery. He claims that WSIB produced forged cheques. He says that after the OPP was assured by WSIB that the cheques were not forged, the police declined to investigate further.

[3] The plaintiff seeks $10 million in general damages for negligent corruption, abuse of authority, and breaches of his constitutional rights.

[4] It appears on the face of the pleading that this action may be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The plaintiff’s complaints regarding another proceeding should be made in that proceeding. They are not a basis to commence a new action. There is no private right of action against the police for failing to investigate a particular crime. Holmes v. White, 2014 ONSC 5809.

[5] The plaintiff should be invited to make submissions to explain why this action should not be dismissed.

[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: May 25, 2015

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