Lee v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming, 2015 ONSC 3576

CITATION: Lee v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming, 2015 ONSC 3576

COURT FILE NO.: 14-61521

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BYEONGHEON LEE

Plaintiff

– and –

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING, RIDEAU CARLETON RACEWAY, UNION OF NATIONAL EMPLOYEES

Defendants

Self-Represented

Joshua Krusell, for the Moving Party/Defendant, Rideau Carleton Raceway

HEARD: June 2, 2015

Endorsement

MARANGER J.

1This was a motion brought by Rideau Carleton Raceway (RCR) for an order striking out the statement of claim and dismissing the action. The motion is brought pursuant to rules 1.04, 2.02, 2.03, 21.01 (1) (b), 21.01 (3) (d), 25.06 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[2]

Background

RCR is a Corporation that owns and operates a horse racing and legal gaming complex located in Ottawa, Ontario. The defendant Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) operates certain legal gaming and entertainment activities at RCR they also have unionized employees who work on the site.

3The plaintiff was a former unionized employee of OLG. He was employed as a part-time housekeeper working at the RCR site. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging that he was falsely accused by his work manager from OLG of failing to pay for a lunch meal while he was working as a part-time housekeeper for OLG on the RCR site. He further alleged that OLG and the union failed to follow the grievance procedure in the applicable collective agreement, and engaged in conduct amounting to a constructive discharge, defamed his character and caused him emotional stress.

4The specific allegation contained in the statement of claim against RCR was that “some employees of RCR continually harassed him with bad intention” that these actions caused emotional distress and stress and that the plaintiff claims $200,000 in general damages and $100,000 in special damages as a result.

[5]

Analysis

The claim should be struck as it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

6The test for determining whether to strike out a claim is whether it is “plain and obvious” that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action or prospect of success. See Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board [2013] O.J. No.1082 Ont. SCJ para 12.

7In this case the plaintiff was served with a demand for particulars with respect to his allegations against RCR, and the plaintiff failed to provide any response to the said demand.

8In this case I would not grant leave to amend the pleadings. The pleadings are incurable. The claim does not disclose any overt acts committed by the defendant nor does it disclose a comprehensible cause of action.

9Finally, I would also dismiss the claim on the basis that it is frivolous and vexatious and has absolutely no chance of succeeding. I concur with the moving party that the frivolous and vexatious nature of this claim is reinforced by the damages sought. The plaintiff seeks $300,000 in damages without providing any material facts to support the allegations made in his pleadings or to substantiate the damages claimed.

[10]

Disposition

Therefore the motion is granted the statement of claim is struck and the action is dismissed. The moving party generously did not claim costs and none are ordered.

Maranger J.