CITATION: Nash v. Sisokin, 2015 ONSC 3487
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Keith Nash and Deborah Nash v. Jonathan Sisokin, Sylvia Victoria Angi c.o.b. Totem Point Lodge, John Doe, Jane Doe and Jim Doe
BEFORE: Rivard J.
COUNSEL: Wayne G. Stickland, counsel for the Responding Party (Plaintiffs)
Don C. Wallace, counsel for the Moving Party (Defendants)
HEARD: May 29, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
1The plaintiffs reside in Ohio, in the United States of America. They claim damages against the defendants as a result of an incident which occurred at Totem Point Lodge in West Nipissing in September of 2011. At that time, the plaintiffs were renting a cabin at the Lodge. The defendant, Jonathan Sisokin, approached them in a belligerent and angry manner. The defendant told Mr. Nash he was going to knock his teeth out. Mr. Sisokin threatened to return later in the night and kill him.
2At approximately 10:45 p.m., Mr. Sisokin returned and started yelling and screaming that he was going to kill Mr. Nash. Mr. Sisokin took out a knife, jabbed it towards Mr. Nash through a screen door. Two other cottagers who were in the vicinity attempted to calm Mr. Sisokin down but he pointed and swung his knife at them. He then punched one of these cottagers on the side of the head.
3Mr. Sisokin was eventually subdued by these cottagers and the knife was taken from him. Mr. Sisokin then had a further outburst and smashed a window, threatening those who were present.
4Police was called. Before they arrived, Mr. Sisokin was taken away by his father-in-law. He was subsequently arrested and charged. On September 4, 2012, Mr. Sisokin pleaded guilty to Assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada and to Threatening contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a). (See Transcript of Proceedings at Tab F of Plaintiff’s Motion Record).
5In their Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs claim damages for assault, battery, false imprisonment, infliction of mental suffering, breach of contract and/or negligence. In paragraph 29 of this pleading, they allege the injuries they sustained include “nervous shock, anxiety, flashbacks, emotional trauma and insomnia”.
6The defendant, Jonathan Sisokin, now moves for an Order for Security for Costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a). It is submitted on his behalf that because the Plaintiffs do not reside in Ontario, an Order should be granted unless the plaintiffs can satisfy the Court such an Order is unnecessary.
7The plaintiffs respond that Rule 56 must be applied in the context of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995, R.S.O. 1995, c.6.
8Section 4(2) of the Victims’ Bill of Rights prohibits the granting of an Order for Security for Costs unless “it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice”.
9Counsel for the moving party submits the Victims’ Bill of Rights does not apply because the plaintiffs have not shown they are “victims” as defined in section 1, having failed to produce medical or psychological reports to support they suffered physical or emotional harm.
10In my view, it is not necessary, on a motion such as this, to prove with medical reports, the harm suffered. The damages allegedly flowing from the incident which form the basis of this claim are pleaded. That is sufficient to identify the plaintiffs as “victims” as defined in the Act.
11I am not satisfied, on the material before me, that an Order for Security for Costs “is necessary in the interests of justice”. In fact, to make such an order would conflict with the spirit and purpose of the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
12The Motion is dismissed.
13The Responding Parties (Plaintiffs) will recover their costs of this motion, fixed in the amount of $2,000 payable in 30 days.
Rivard J.
Date: June 1, 2015