CITATION: Durfy v. Mliscögen, 2015 ONSC 3631

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-120189-00

DATE: 20150608

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

DEANNA DURFY

Plaintiff

– and –

ELDÖRSE MLISCÖGEN

Defendant

AND BETWEEN:

ELDÖRSE MLISCÖGEN

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

• and –

DEANNA DURFY and GREGORY ROBERTS

Defendants by Counterclaim

G. Roberts, for the Plaintiff

Eldörse Mliscögen, Defendant, Self-Represented

Eldörse Mliscögen, Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Self-Represented

G. Roberts for the Defendants by Counterclaim

W. Kim for the Public Guardian and Trustee

HEARD: April 8, 2015

REASONS FOR DECISION

QUINLAN J.:

Overview

[1] For ten days in 2014, Eldörse Mliscögen (the defendant), was a tenant of Deanna Durfy (the plaintiff), in a home that she rented to students. The defendant’s behaviour soon caused the plaintiff to be concerned about the safety of her other tenants, so she changed the locks on the home. The defendant offered to move out if the plaintiff returned all of the rent money he had paid. She agreed. He moved out with all of his belongings; she returned all the rent money to him.

[2] One might think that would be the end of the matter, however, it was just the beginning.

[3] The next day the defendant returned to the house with a police officer, untruthfully claiming that he still had belongings in the house and no money to go elsewhere. He then filed unsuccessful applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court. The defendant began writing emails to the plaintiff’s employer, the York Regional District School Board (School Board), where she is employed as a vice-principal. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff evicted him because he was gay and that she used cipher encoded messages to organize a conspiracy against him based on his sexual orientation. He further alleged that the plaintiff, along with her husband, who is a lawyer and a defendant by counterclaim, committed fraud and filed forged documents before the LTB. The defendant demanded that the School Board fire the plaintiff.

[4] The plaintiff commenced the within action against the defendant for defamation.

Relief Sought

[5] The plaintiff brings a motion (the plaintiff’s motion) for:

(a) a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from communicating statements or assertions about her to the School Board;

(b) summary judgment and damages in relation to her defamation claim; and

(c) an order dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim, or in the alternative, an order for security for costs.[^1]

[6] The defendant brings a motion (the defendant’s motion) to:

(a) stop the plaintiff and her husband from “feeding wrong information” to the court and general public;

(b) reverse the “wrong orders” made in the Superior Court of Justice in St. Catharines due to an alleged violation by the plaintiff’s husband of the motion confirmation rule in actions the defendant commenced against the plaintiff’s husband and two of the plaintiff’s tenants; and

(c) grant damages of $5,000 on each of “five facts” for “violation to laws”.

History of Proceedings

[7] The defendant applied to the LTB claiming that the plaintiff evicted him from the house he had rented from her because he was gay. He alleged that he had no money and his belongings were still in the house. The LTB dismissed the defendant’s application. The defendant filed a request with the LTB to review the order dismissing his application; the LTB denied his request to review the order.

[8] The defendant then appealed the rulings of the LTB to the Divisional Court. He asked that the plaintiff be arrested and taken to prison and that she and her husband be “investigated and executed for fraud”. He alleged that the plaintiff sent secretly encoded e-mails to the other tenants in the rental home in a conspiracy to evict him, and that she used ciphers, elaborate messages, coded e-mails and algorithms to communicate and conspire with the LTB member who decided the application in order to influence the member’s decision.

[9] On October 1, 2014, the Divisional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal with costs in the amount of $1,000. The next day the defendant served a motion for leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, relying upon “Deanna Cipher Message in Lease and Send – Code Red – to abuse John Mliscögen”. As noted later in these reasons, his motion for leave was dismissed.

[10] The defendant reported the plaintiff’s husband to the Law Society of Upper Canada, alleging that affidavits the plaintiff’s husband filed with the LTB were forgeries because they were signed in different coloured inks and the signatures on different copies did not appear to be identical.

[11] The defendant applied to the Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal), claiming that he was discriminated against because he was gay. His application was eventually dismissed.

[12] On September 18, 2014, the defendant began sending emails to the plaintiff’s employer, the School Board. Between September 18, 2014 and October 1, 2014, he sent six emails, with various attachments, to the School Board.

[13] In those e-mails, the defendant stated the following:

… … [the plaintiff] schemed undergraduate group of four to discriminate a single gay undergraduate student … schemed students to create fraud affidavit with obvious different signatures with different pens signed by the same person at the same time … urged her family member [plaintiff’s husband] to purposely violated law requirement … [the plaintiff] organized four undergraduate students at Brock University to setup illegal “Private Court” for students … and [the plaintiff] and [her husband] schemed to illegally evict and abuse a signal tenant undergraduate from University of Toronto base on gay orientation. The victim is me … [the plaintiff] also dumped me to the street without giving any reason on May 8th at 6 Celsius below zero’s temperature and continuously created fraud document to cover up her discriminative scheme … I require York Region School Board Human Resource to take action protect my student and human right and to fire [the plaintiff] from Principal’s position at your Board because of violation to equal rights and sexual orientation …

[14] In one of the emails, the defendant attached a letter describing the allegations in more detail, together with copies of his Factum, Appeal Book and Compendium for the Ontario Court of Appeal leave motion, his complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada and his applications to the LTB and the Tribunal. With his sixth e-mail, the defendant attached a 25-page document repeating many of his earlier allegations and setting out details regarding the alleged cipher encoded messages. In one example, the defendant stated that the translation for the LTB member’s name is “Obey Big Japan, Kill Horse with two chops.”

[15] The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant on September 20, 2014, asking him to retract his communications to the School Board. The defendant refused. The plaintiff then commenced the within action for defamation and sought an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to communicate statements or assertions about her to the School Board. The plaintiff also sought an order for summary judgment and an order preventing the defendant from filing further proceedings without leave of a judge.

[16] The defendant filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated October 2, 2014.[^2] The pleadings set out the defendant’s version of events leading up to the termination of his tenancy, and rely heavily on the alleged cipher encoded messages.

[17] The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction before Vallee J. to restrain the defendant from communicating statements or assertions to her School Board. Vallee J. found that the e-mails and their attachments were sent to attempt to damage the plaintiff’s reputation and to influence the School Board to terminate her employment and that the words alleging that the plaintiff created a conspiracy and committed fraud lowered the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, specifically her employer, and were clearly defamatory. Vallee J. concluded that the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim did not contain any rational justification for the defamatory words and that the defendant did not plead any objective grounds which could be considered to support a justification for the defamatory words alleging conspiracy and fraud.

[18] On October 14, 2014, Vallee J. granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from in any way communicating any statements or assertions about the plaintiff to the School Board. She adjourned the balance of the motion to a date to be fixed by the trial coordinator.

[19] In December 2014, in the face of the plaintiff’s outstanding motion for an order preventing him from commencing any further proceedings without leave of the court, the defendant commenced an action in St. Catharines against the plaintiff’s husband, seeking $2 million in damages, and an action against two of the plaintiff’s tenants who are students at Brock University, seeking $50,000 in damages.

[20] In the course of the various proceedings that the defendant has commenced, he has accused the plaintiff and her husband of being involved in the shooting of the Canadian soldier on Parliament Hill, assisting the Japanese Central Agency in a plot to drop nuclear bombs in 2018, communicating with the tenants in the plaintiff’s rental home and court officials using secret “Samurai messages” and encoded “ciphered” messages, and following him to poison his food.

[21] A second document accompanied the Statement of Claim in the St. Catharines’ action against the plaintiff’s husband and was in the defendant’s motion materials for his motion before me. It is titled “Evidences to this Case”. The face page of this document states:

Gregory William Roberts’ and Deanna Durfy’s Organized Crime to Victimize Eldörse Mliscögen and To Pass Secret Orders of Attack For Japanese Central Agency’s Invasion and Isolation of Non-Japanese War in Niagara Falls Region. Their service in Relation to Ottawa Parliament Shooting and Emperor Akihito’s Secret Plan to Deposit Two Nuclear Bombs in Indiana State and Wisconsin State in 2018.

[22] The plaintiff’s husband and the tenants brought motions in St. Catharines to strike out the actions against them. After being served with the Motion Records, the defendant served notices purporting to abandon the motions and served Trial Records in both actions seeking that the plaintiff and her husband serve sixteen years in prison and compensate the defendant for $2 million in general and special damages.

[23] The motions to strike the St. Catharines’ actions were returnable January 29, 2015 before Harper J. The defendant was not present. Harper J. determined that the same issue that was before him was scheduled to be heard in Newmarket on February 5, 2015. He ordered that both files be transferred to Newmarket to allow for all matters dealing with the same fact and law to be heard together and noted in his endorsement that, after having read the materials, he had concerns about the capacity of the defendant. Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules),[^3] he ordered that the motions be served on the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) so the PGT could make submissions on whether it should become involved.

[24] After their attendance before Harper J., and apparently following up on the concerns of the court, the plaintiff and her husband attended before a justice of the peace. The justice of the peace completed a Form 2 Order for Examination under the Mental Health Act[^4] authorizing the examination of the defendant by a physician.[^5]

[25] Although the defendant was not present in court on January 29, 2015, immediately after the motion concluded, the plaintiff saw the defendant in the Registrar’s office in St. Catharines. The defendant was filing a claim against two members of the Brock University Security Force, alleging much of the same conduct alleged against the plaintiff and her husband.

[26] On January 29, 2015, the defendant also served a Notice of Discontinuance of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the within action. The plaintiff’s husband wrote to the defendant and advised the defendant that he could not discontinue the plaintiff’s motion.

[27] After the defendant was served with Harper J.’s endorsement, the defendant discontinued both of the St. Catharines’ actions, thus preventing their transfer to Newmarket. He then immediately re-issued the same actions in St. Catharines.

[28] The defendant then brought a motion (the defendant’s motion) dated March 11, 2015, to “[C]ease [the plaintiff and her husband] from feeding wrong information to this court and general public …, [R]everse wrong order” on the St. Catherines’ motion due to the alleged failure of the plaintiff’s husband to serve him with a confirmation of motion form for the January 29, 2015 motions in St. Catherines, and damages of $5,000 on “each of five facts of [the plaintiff’s husband and plaintiff] violation to laws”.

[29] I will refer to the content of the defendant’s motion later in these reasons.

[30] On February 12, 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s motion for leave to appeal the ruling of the Divisional Court.

[31] The plaintiff’s husband has asked the court in St. Catharines to strike out the second Statements of Claim that the defendant has commenced against him and the two tenants, relying on Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules, on the ground that they are frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.

[32] The defendant’s motion dated March 11, 2015 was originally returnable on March 31. On March 26, 2015, the plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction, summary judgment, dismissal of the counterclaim, and an order prohibiting the defendant from filing further proceedings was before DiTomaso J. Counsel for the PGT was present. The defendant had advised the plaintiff that he was not going to appear and did not attend. On March 26, 2015, DiTomaso J. ordered that the plaintiff’s motion and the defendant’s motion scheduled for March 31, 2015 be adjourned to April 8, 2015, to be heard together. He also ordered that the PGT be granted leave to file materials and make representations to the court. Lastly, DiTomaso J. ordered that until further order of the court, the defendant was prohibited from instituting further proceedings in any court or proceeding with previously instituted proceedings in any court, without leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

[33] On April 7, 2015, the Tribunal rendered its written reasons dismissing the defendant’s application in view of the counterclaim in the within action that included the same allegations.

Analysis

Preliminary Issue as to the Defendant’s Capacity

[34] In view of the endorsement of Harper J. and the order of DiTomaso J., the PGT made submissions before me. The position taken by the PGT, supported by the plaintiff and the defendant, was that there was insufficient evidence of incapacity to make a determination that the defendant was a party under disability.

[35] In view of the materials filed by the defendant and the history of the proceedings, I had concerns as to the capacity of the defendant. However, there was neither a capacity assessment nor any other evidence regarding the defendant’s capacity before me. I considered that the steps he had taken in the various proceedings demonstrated an effort to achieve his goals.

[36] For oral reasons given, I found that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was mentally incapable and therefore a party under disability.

The Plaintiff’s Motion

(a) Permanent Injunction

[37] Vallee J. decided that the plaintiff had met the stringent test to grant an interlocutory injunction in a defamation action.[^6] I have reviewed the e-mails sent by the defendant to the School Board. I adopt the reasoning of Vallee J. I find that the words alleging that the plaintiff created a conspiracy and committed fraud are clearly defamatory and impossible to justify. They have the effect of lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and exposing her to contempt.[^7]

[38] As noted in Vallee J.’s ruling, the defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim relies heavily on the alleged cipher encoded messages; he attributes sinister meanings to the words of the decoded translations as justification for his allegations of conspiracy and fraud against the plaintiff.

[39] The defendant pleaded that the e-mail content between he and the School Board was confidential, and it is a “student’s responsibility” to report a crime to the School Board. He pleaded that he only contacted the School Board twice when they requested further information from him. However, the defendant is not a student in that School Board. He initiated contact with the School Board and sent six e-mails with various attachments.

[40] The defendant does not plead any objective grounds which could be considered to provide a justification for the defamatory words alleging conspiracy and fraud. I find that the plaintiff has met the test to grant a permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s motion for this relief is granted.

(b) Summary Judgment and Damages in the Defamation Action

Test for Summary Judgment

[41] In Hryniak v. Mauldin,[^8] the Supreme Court of Canada considered when summary judgment can be granted on the basis that there is “no genuine issue requiring a trial”, as per rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules:

[49] There will be no genuine issue requiring trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.[^9]

[42] The powers available under rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) are presumptively available.[^10] They only become unavailable where it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at trial. In that regard, the Court noted:

The interest of justice cannot be limited to the advantageous features of a conventional trial, and must account for proportionality, timeliness and affordability. Otherwise, the adjudication permitted with the new powers – and the purpose of the amendments – would be frustrated.[^11]

[43] Hryniak directs that the judge should first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence before her, without using the new fact-finding powers. If there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, she should then decide if the need for a trial can be avoided by using the new powers under rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2).[^12] The Supreme Court has noted that the “standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the judge the confidence that she can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute.”[^13]

[44] Summary judgment is available in defamation cases.[^14]

Defendant’s Evidence on the Summary Judgment Motion

[45] The defendant relied on his affidavit sworn January 27, 2015, in support of his motion and in response to the plaintiff’s motion. The defendant deposed that the plaintiff’s husband created gay pornography with actors selected to have the same face and body as if a “twin brother” of one of the tenants, and then posted it on the Internet. The defendant’s affidavit includes screen shots from the Internet showing the pornography that the defendant claims the plaintiff’s husband created. The defendant deposed that the actor being “penetrated” is tattooed with Chinese words that translate to the defendant’s first name and that the pornography was created and posted by the plaintiff’s husband to “slander and destroy [the defendant’s] dignity, reputation and identity”.

[46] The defendant deposed that “[In] summary, it’s the Japanese Central Agency’s service render Judge Theodore Matlow’s[^15] truly camouflaged message order in his definition of GOD on page 101 and 102 of book ‘The Most Dangerous Branch’”; that deciphered, this means “Central Japan Call Top Agency through Bag Bed, Bad Fag, the Bag Bed was referring to Japanese Emperor’s German Left Wing For Gay Deb …”

[47] The defendant deposed that the plaintiff’s husband “organized DSR Crime[^16] to slander and destruct, abort, uproot, eradicate the [defendant’s] career, education, means of living, cum right with a human leading to same-sex marriage”; that “none of the submitted material on pure facts” was defamatory to the plaintiff. However, he then deposed that the plaintiff directed attack orders by slandering the defendant, based on the plaintiff’s service to organized crime and that those camouflaged attack orders were executed by Brock University students who had connections with the plaintiff at Brock University and who served Japanese Emperor Akihito’s German left wing in politics. He claimed that numerous personal attacks and slander were started and organized by the Japanese Central Agency’s German Left Wing “service render”, who the defendant alleged is the plaintiff and her husband. He claimed that there were camouflaged ciphered message orders in the plaintiff’s legal documents that were implemented by the court clerks in Newmarket under the influence of the Japanese Central Agency.

[48] The affidavit contains many unsupported attacks on the character and integrity of the plaintiff and her husband. The defendant’s affidavit, based on unproven and unsupported allegations, does not take this case out of one that can appropriately be dealt with by way of summary judgment.

[49] The defendant also filed a document entitled “Evidences to this Case”, outlined earlier in these reasons, which contains a repetition of the pleadings and filings thus far, relying in large part on ciphered messages and unproven and unsupported allegations. This document, too, does not take this case out of the summary judgment arena.

Decision on Summary Judgment Motion

[50] This is an appropriate case in which to grant summary judgment. There is no genuine issue requiring a trial. I am able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits of the case on this motion for summary judgment. The materials allow me to make the necessary findings of fact, and to apply the law to the facts. It is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

[51] I find that the allegations set out in the defendant’s written communications to the School Board are unsupported attacks on the plaintiff’s character and integrity. Summary judgment in the plaintiff’s defamation claim is granted.

Quantum of Damages

[52] General damages in defamation cases are presumed from the very publication of the false statement and are awarded at large.[^17] As noted in Henderson v. Pearlman,[^18] the court is entitled to make a subjective finding of damages at large without requiring proof of specific financial loss.

[53] The defendant repeatedly published defamatory statements in an attempt to have the plaintiff fired from her position as a vice-principal. The defendant refused to retract the statements. I find that an award of $10,000 is an appropriate award of damages for the defamatory communications sent by the defendant.

(c) Striking out the Counterclaim

[54] The plaintiff seeks to strike out the defendant’s counterclaim, relying on Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules. Rule 21.01(1)(b) allows a party to move to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence. Rule 25.11 allows the court to strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The Counterclaim

[55] In his counterclaim the defendant claims damages against the plaintiff and her husband in the amount of $280,500 for discrimination, wage loss, mental damage, moving costs, dignity and self-respect damage, defamation and injurious falsehood, making false or misleading statements affecting the defendant’s ability to find a job or right to find a potential gay spouse and unlawful interference with his client relationship to the School Board and the Law Society of Upper Canada. The defendant seeks an interlocutory and permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff and her husband from making further defamatory, false or misleading statements and from interfering with the defendant’s community relations in the Niagara Region.

[56] The counterclaim relies heavily on ciphered messages. It refers to deciphering messages in articles and books concerning Matlow J. as “Fire Fire Chinese Advertisement” and “bag bed with code (1)234678 and bad fag with code 234(13)45.” The defendant pleads that the case title was embedded with cipher keys and when deciphered was, “Japanese Emperor gave order to plan in 2018 to fire Big Q Nuclear Bomb in India and Wisconsin in United States” and that the cipher key was the same as the “coordinates of Indiana States”.

[57] He further pleads that Brock University undergraduate students harassed him, stole his mail and replaced confidential identity documents. The defendant pleads that he found a secret message in the lease agreement between he and the plaintiff that he deciphered as “GAY BID BEE, BED BED HEAD DEAF BOB J.”, and “Samurai is all”. The counterclaim continues with its listing of ciphered messages, including those between the plaintiff’s husband and the LTB member, which contained the hidden message, “Obey Big Japan, kill Horse…” The defendant pleads that the plaintiff spread rumours about the defendant and poisoned his food, that he was attacked numerous times and that as a result of the damaging statements made by the plaintiff and her husband to the defendant’s community, businesses, friends, potential same-sex spouse, and the public in Niagara Region, the defendant has suffered loss and damages.

Decision on Striking the Counterclaim

[58] The rule of res judicata relates to those things that were proven in an earlier action, as well as those which might have been proven.[^19] The LTB and the Divisional Court did not accept that the defendant was evicted because he was gay and that is, accordingly, res judicata. To apply res judicata in the case before me would not cause unfairness, or work an injustice.[^20]

[59] The balance of the counterclaim is scandalous, embarrassing and irrelevant.[^21] The claims are not sufficiently coherent to permit the plaintiff to plead.[^22] The counterclaim does not comply with the rules of pleading and discloses no reasonable cause of action. Accordingly, the counterclaim is hereby struck, without leave to amend, on the ground that it is scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious, and discloses no reasonable cause of action.

The Defendant’s Motion

(a) To Stop the Plaintiff and her Husband From Feeding Wrong Information to the Court and General Public

[60] The defendant relies on the material filed thus far in support of his motion, including his affidavit sworn January 27, 2015. I have reviewed his affidavit along with the many documents filed in this matter.

[61] The materials filed by the plaintiff and her husband in the various proceedings contain supporting documentation. I find that there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff and her husband have “fed any wrong information to the court and general public”. Accordingly, this request for relief is dismissed.

(b) Reverse Wrong Orders on St. Catharines Actions as a Result of the Defendant’s Failure to Receive Confirmation of the Motion

[62] After the plaintiff’s husband filed the motions in St. Catharines scheduled to be heard on January 29, 2015, the defendant purported to abandon them, filing documents entitled “Notice of Motion Abandonment”. The defendant submitted that he tried to abandon the motions because the plaintiff’s husband did not serve a confirmation form. The timing of his request to abandon the motions belies this assertion: his notices are dated January 15, 2015, two weeks in advance of the motions.

[63] The defendant alleges that he was unaware that the motions before Harper J. were proceeding on January 29, 2015 and that wrong information was fed to the court in his absence. The defendant seeks to “reverse” the “wrong orders” to transfer the two St. Catharines actions to Newmarket.

[64] I am satisfied that the defendant was served with the motion confirmation forms, however, in any event, subsequent to that order being made, the defendant discontinued both actions and, as such, the order transferring those actions has no effect. This request for relief is dismissed.

(c) Damages Against the Plaintiff and her Husband

[65] The defendant moves to “correct the wrong information” submitted by the plaintiff and her husband to the LTB and the Tribunal. I have reviewed the materials filed by the plaintiff and her husband and their supporting documentation. There is no support for the defendant’s position. There is no credible evidence that the plaintiff or her husband provided false information during the course of any proceeding involving the defendant.

[66] The defendant seeks damages for having to undergo the psychiatric assessment sought by the plaintiff and her husband. Considering the materials filed, including the defendant’s request that the plaintiff and her husband be executed for fraud, I find that it was reasonable for them to attend before a justice of the peace to seek an assessment of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion seeking damages against the plaintiff and her husband is dismissed.

Conclusion

[67] This court orders that:

(i) the defendant, Eldörse Mliscögen, is permanently restrained from making, publishing, distributing or in any way communicating any statements or assertions, whether written or oral, and whether distributed by the Internet or otherwise about the plaintiff, Dianna Durfy to the York Region District School Board;

(ii) summary judgment of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for defamation is hereby granted;

(iii) damages for defamation in the amount of $10,000 are ordered payable by the defendant, Eldörse Mliscögen to the plaintiff, Deanna Durfy;

(iv) the counterclaim of the defendant, Eldörse Mliscögen, is hereby struck without leave to amend;

(v) the motion of the defendant, Eldörse Mliscögen, is hereby dismissed.

Costs

[68] If the parties cannot agree on costs, I will receive written submissions, not to exceed three pages in length, plus a Bill of Costs Outline. Submissions from the plaintiff are to be provided by June 28, 2015, with responding materials from the defendant to follow by July 13, 2015. If no submissions are received by July 13, 2015, the issue of costs will be deemed to have been settled as between the parties.

QUINLAN J.

Released: June 8, 2015

[^1]: Although the plaintiff also sought an order prohibiting the filing of further actions by the defendant, that relief was not pursued before me.

[^2]: Although these were originally separate documents and there are other copies in the file in a slightly different form or with a different pagination, the content is the same.

[^3]: R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[^4]: R.S.O. 1990, c.M.7.

[^5]: An applicant for a Form 2 must have reasonable cause to believe the person is apparently suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or quality that will likely result in serious bodily harm to the person or another. The defendant was examined pursuant to the Form 2 and then released.

[^6]: Durfy v. Mliscögen, 2014 ONSC 6351.

[^7]: Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Limited, 1995 60 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3 at para. 62.

[^8]: 2014 SCC 7 [“Hryniak”].

[^9]: Hryniak ibid at para. 49.

[^10]: Hryniak ibid at para. 67.

[^11]: Hryniak ibid at para. 56.

[^12]: Hryniak ibid at para. 66.

[^13]: Hryniak ibid at para. 50.

[^14]: Henderson v. Pearlman, 2009 43641 (ONSC), following Ayangma v. NAV (Canada) (2001), 2001 PESCAD 1, 203 D.L.R. (4th) 717 (PEICA).

[^15]: Matlow J. was the President of the Divisional Court panel that dismissed the defendant’s appeal from the decisions of the LTB.

[^16]: Approximately halfway through his 41-page single-spaced affidavit, the defendant appears to define DSR Crime as “Drug Dealer Students’ Crime, Slander Victim New Student, Racist Discriminate Gay Identity”.

[^17]: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 at para. 164.

[^18]: Ibid at para. 56.

[^19]: Bear Island Foundation et al v. Ontario, 1999 9307 (ON CA), [1999] O.J. No. 4290 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 30.

[^20]: Ibid at para. 31.

[^21]: Del Cane v. Alcinii (1998), 24 C.P.C. (4th) 321, 1998 CarswellOnt 2314 (Master).

[^22]: Adams-Smith v. Christian Horizons (1997), 14 C.P.C. (4th) 78 (Ont. Gen. Div.).