Keedi v. McDonald’s Corporation Canada, 2015 ONSC 3516
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: PIERRE KEEDI, Plaintiff (self-represented)
AND MCDONALD'S CORPORATION CANADA, MCDONALD'S CANADA INCORPORATED,MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CANADA LIMITED,DIANE SKRYZPSKI,JASON SEELY,CHRIS MARTIN,RAVI KOUSSA,OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE, ANGELIQUE PROVOST,DARREN SHORE,KELLY DAYMENT,JAMES RITCHIE, and CHIEF CHARLES BORDLEAU, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
ENDORSEMENT
1By endorsement dated April 17, 2015, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the Plaintiff advising him that the Court was considering making an order under rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 dismissing this proceeding as being frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
2The Plaintiff was invited to file written submissions within 15 days explaining why his action should not be dismissed. The Plaintiff filed his submissions on May 8, 2015. On May 11, 2015, I directed the Registrar to serve all Defendants with my Endorsement dated April 17, 2015 as well as the Plaintiff’s submissions that had been filed.
3No further submissions have been received from any of the Defendants. Only one Statement of Defence has been filed in these proceedings on behalf of the Defendants Ottawa Police Service, Angelique Provost, Darren Shore, Kelly Dayment, James Ritchie and Chief Charles Bordeleau. Its filing predated my Endorsement dated April 17, 2015.
4In his written submissions, the Plaintiff asks that the claim should be allowed to proceed on its merits. He has obviously acquainted himself with the Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks relief from noncompliance. He draws attention to the fact that he is inexperienced and self-represented.
5While the precise nature of his claims against the various Defendants remains a mystery, he adds at paragraph 10 of his submissions:
I wrote a detailed letter to the defendants, dated March 31, 2015, of my “Notice of Intent to Move, with affidavit material and other evidence for Summary Judgment on part (75%) of my Statement of Claim - pursuant to rule 20.01(1).” I proactively made this decision purely out of respect for the court process/integrity to not waste time getting to the facts and disclosing my evidence against the defendants.
They were advised accordingly before they filed a very basic/general defence and so I’m perplexed the defendants would attempt to stop a lawful process that they were made aware I would complete within weeks. I’m certain that they will not be able to defend against my claims once the evidence disclosed. I say this was full respect/appreciation of the unlimited resources/capacities in these intellectual professionals have. The evidence will paint a clear/bright picture for these honourable Courts…
6He goes on to make a request for “affidavit answers” from each of the Defendants and indicates his intention to move by way of Summary Judgment.
7He blames auto spellcheck and his lack of time to file and proofread as being the main culprits for the wrong words being inserted in the Notice of Action. He asks for the opportunity to make appropriate amendments but does not suggest what these might be.
8He acknowledges paragraph 2, sentence 2 of the Ottawa Police Service Statement of Defence as being true. It says:
….Further, the plaintiff has been found guilty of the offence of failing to comply with the recognizance arising out of his interaction with the Ottawa police on or about January 3, 2014...
9The Plaintiff makes reference to a McDonald’s Statement of Defence which has not been filed and he requests an opportunity to make verbal submissions to make amendments and to seek direction from the Court. Again, he has not set out the nature of the amendments and the substantive nature of his claims as against the various Defendants, remain unclear.
10The Plaintiff takes issue with the original letter that requested the dismissal and argues that it is contrary to Rule 1.09. That submission ignores Rule 2.1.1. He also indicates his intention to add yet another defendant although the claims against that individual are not spelled out.
11In Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, Justice Myers carefully reviewed the three procedural routes to control frivolous and vexatious proceeding as well as the common law doctrine of the abuse of process. He notes that the amount of wasted judicial time and administrative resources dealing with utterly frivolous matters is substantial.
12He reviewed the provisions of rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and noted that case law under that rule could provide guidance in the application of Rule 2.1 given that the two rules use the same wording. He referred to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 CanLII 7815 where Armstrong J.A. said the following at paragraphs 14 and 15:
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “frivolous” as: open “lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful.”
In Foy v. Foy (No.2), (1979), 1979 CanLII 1631 (ON CA), 26 O.R. (2d) 220 (Ont. C.A.) at 226, Howland, C.J.O. considered the meaning of “vexatious” under the vexatious proceedings act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 481, now section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act:
The word “vexatious” has not been clearly defined. Under the act, the legal proceedings must be vexatious and must also have been instituted without reasonable grounds. In many of the reported decisions legal proceedings had been held to be vexatious because they were instituted without any reasonable ground. As a result the proceedings were found to constitute an abuse of the process of the court….
He went on to identify a number of common attributes of the vexatious litigant which included “bringing proceedings where no reasonable person would expect to obtain the relief sought”:
In the context of Rule 2.1 there is no need for persistence of any one or more factors. It is expected that most cases under Rule 2.1 will not require much depth of analysis. Many of the cases that are of the types that I have been referring to herein, will be obvious on their face. The court receives a number of unintelligible proceedings and repeat attempts to bring the same matters on again and again. Many of these proceedings bear some of the unmistakable hallmarks of querulous litigant behavior such as:
Form
Curious formatting
Many, many pages
Odd or irrelevant attachments—e.g., copies of letters from others and legal decisions, UN Charter on Human Rights etc., all usually, extensively annotated
Multiple methods of emphasis including:
highlighting (various colours)
underlining
capitalization
Repeated use of ‘‘’’,???, !!!
Numerous foot and marginal notes
Content
Rambling discourse characterized by repetition and a pedantic failure to clarify
Rhetorical questions
Repeated misuse of legal, medical and other technical terms
Referring to self in the third person
Inappropriately ingratiating statements
Ultimatums
Threats of violence to self or others
Threats of violence directed at individuals or organizations
13Many of those hallmarks are present here although there are no threats of violence directed towards anyone. The Statement of Claim remains unintelligible and has been instituted without presenting any reasonable ground. His planned motion for Summary Judgment is doomed for failure and will only involve wasted court time and resources. Requiring the Defendants to incur costs to respond to these proceedings would not be in the interests of justice and no further court time should be expended on this matter.
14I conclude that the Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, vexatious and amounts to an abuse of process of the court. I direct the Registrar to accept no further filings from the Plaintiff in this action.
15This Endorsement is to be sent to the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants by regular mail.
16The Defendants, or whichever of them as they may agree, shall submit the draft Order to the Registrar for signing and entry without the necessity to seek approval as to form and content by the Plaintiff. The Defendants shall then serve a copy of the entered Order on the Plaintiff and file proof of service with the Registrar.
17I decline to make any order as to costs.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: June 1, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 14-61650
DATE: 20150601
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: PIERRE KEEDI, Plaintiff (self-represented)
AND MCDONALD'S CORPORATION CANADA, MCDONALD'S CANADA INCORPORATED,MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CANADA LIMITED,DIANE SKRYZPSKI,JASON SEELY,CHRIS MARTIN,RAVI KOUSSA,OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE, ANGELIQUE PROVOST,DARREN SHORE,KELLY DAYMENT,JAMES RITCHIE, and CHIEF CHARLES BORDLEAU
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
COUNSEL: Lisa Langevin, counsel for McDonald’s Corporation Canada
Jeremy Wright, counsel for Ottawa Police Service
ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: June 1, 2015