Gledhill v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 ONSC 374
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14 - 516185
DATE: 20150119
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mark Gledhill
Plaintiff
-AND-
Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”) & Brian Maslowski, #7604 (“OIC”),
PC21 Nicholas Smith (“10747”), PC12 Dharmendra Grewel (“8070”),
PC 12 Phoel Ong (#5346) (“McNeil 1”), PL14 John Maciek (#4032) (“McNeil 2”)
(“MOS”), The Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) & Odelia Delgado (“OD”),
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (“MCSCS”) & Ian McKinley (“IMK”),
Scotia Plaza & Michael Cole (“40 KING WEST”), Canderel Group of Companies & Janis
Braun, Moses Aguirre (“CANDEREL”), GWL Realty Advisors & Sandra Celli (“GWL”),
Brookfield Place & Philip Longton (“PL”), et al (“BROOKFIELD”), Intercon/Garda World
(“INTERCON”) & Brett Humphrey (“BH”), Brent Alan Dewell (#099452) (“BAD”),
William Rodger (#103552) (“WR”), Wagner Morilla (#10728327) (“WM”), Alexander
Evanchick (“AE”), John Doe (“609146”)
Defendants
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
READ: January, 19, 2015
endorsement
1This action 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, the Toronto Police Services Board, Brian Maslowki, Nicholas Smith, Dhamrendra Grewel, Phoel Ong and John Maciek under subrule 2.1.01(6).
2The statement of claim in this matter was struck out by Campbell J. on July 30, 2014. Master Hawkins also struck out the statement of claim by order dated September 22, 2014 although the motion before him was brought by one set of defendants and was heard before the motion before Campbell J. was heard. The plaintiff delivered a further form of statement of claim which the defendants moved to strike out and dismiss on December 15, 2014. After hearing argument that included Mr. Gledhill’s articulation of the facts upon which he was seeking legal relief, I held that the action was an effort by the plaintiff to re-litigate his eviction as ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board. Mr. Gledhill’s appeal of his eviction was quashed by the Divisional Court as being devoid of merit. Therefore I held that the action was an abuse of process and I dismissed the action.
3In my endorsement, I also found the form of statement of claim that was before the court to be deficient on pleadings grounds. I declined to grant leave to amend as it was plain and obvious that the action could not succeed on the merits and I had before me a proposed further amended pleading which I found was not any better than the one that was already before me. See Ontario v. Satschko 2007 CarswekllOnt 8086, aff’d 2009 CarswellOnt 263(CA).
4Although the action has been dismissed already, it appears that the plaintiff actually had his next form of statement of claim formally amended on November 18, 2014. Therefore the defendants listed in paragraph [1] above have requested that the registrar issue a notice under rule 2.1 to dismiss the claim as being on its face frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. I do not know if the plaintiff has purported to assert that his claim persists under this further amended pleading or if the defendants are acting just out of an abundance of caution to tie off a loose end.
5As is apparent from the three rulings of the court previously made, that the amended statement of claim as issued November 14, 2014 appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. The court should therefore hear from the plaintiff to determine if he is indeed attempting to continue his lawsuit under the further amended statement of claim and, if he is, the basis upon which he submits that he is entitled to do so.
6On 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;
b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, if any element of the plaintiff’s claim remains extant, the 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: January 19, 2015
1See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100 at para.