COURT FILE NO.: C-2835-13

DATE: 2015/07/14

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

S.F.

Plaintiff

– and –

THE GREATER SUDBURY POLICE SERVICE, THE SUDBURY POLICE SERVICES BOARD AND SUDBURY POLICE ASSOCIATION, M. PAQUETTE, CRAIG MAKI, ROBIN TIPLAY, M. JEFFERY, DAVID BECK, CRAIG MOXAM, TODD BIGNOCOLLO, DAN ZULIANNI, JEFF KUHN, SUSAN LEYS, TIM BURTT, J. ROBERTSON, L. MCLOSKY, T. MARASSATO, P. SMYTH, ELAINA GROVES, SANDRA DICAIRE, PAUL MCGEE, MEAGAN O’MALLEY, JACK SIVAZLIAN, DUNCAN EPP, M. ROBINSON, GREG BERGERON, FRANK ELSNER, CONST. ELDEAMA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO, JOHN LUCZAK, KENDRICK ABBOTT, MERIEL ANDERSON, SUSAN BRUCE, MARC HUNEAULT, JOHN HOLLAND, LEILA MEHKERI, RUBY BECK, MICHEL J. MOREAU, MICHAEL G. KITLAR, SUSAN STOTHART, LEONARD KIM, DIANNE LAFLUER, ANDREA BEAL, RIA BIGNOCOLLO, HELENE BRYDGES, PIERRE BRADLEY LAW OFFICE, CHILDREN’S AID’S SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICTS OF SUDBURY AND MANITOULIN, JEAN JACQUES PAQUETTE, REJEAN PARISE, COLLETTE PREVOST, NORA DOUGAN, LINDA CULLAIN, JEAN O’CONNER, DARLENE WILSON, MICHELLE GLOVER, DONALD KINGSLEY, CANDICE POULIN, KAREN FAGEN, CHRISTY CROTEAU, DEBBIE LACELLE, LAURA FOX, JODY MARCOTTE, MS. BISAILLON, LOUISE BRENDA BEAUVAIS, JOSH NEGUSANTI, PATRICIA L. MEEHAN, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, SHEILA MILNE M.D., BRENDA PETRYNA, HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD, THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD, SUZANNE GILBERT and MR. OLIVER, OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW DIRECTOR GERRY MCNEILLY, SUSAN DUNN-LUNDY, KIM MCDONALD, BERNIE MUILLER, TERESA PIRUZZA MINISTRY OF CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES, DEB MATHEWS MINISTRY OF HEALTH, RICK BARTOLUCCI MPP FOR SUDBURY ONTARIO, VICE CHAIR STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Defendants

S.F., Unrepresented

Carole G. Jenkins, for the Defendants, Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, Collette Prevost, Nora Dougan, Linda Cullain, Jean O’Connor, Darlene Wilson, Michelle Glover, Donald Kingsley, Candice Poulin, Karen Fagen, Christy Croteau, Debbie Lacelle, Laura Fox, Jody Marcotte, Louise Beauvais, Brenda Beauvais and Josh Negusanti, and

C. Kirk Boggs, for the defendants, THE GREATER SUDBURY POLICE SERVICE, THE SUDBURY POLICE SERVICES BOARD, M. PAQUETTE, CRAIG MAKI, ROBIN TIPLAY, M. JEFFERY, DAVID BECK, CRAIG MOXAM, TODD BIGNOCOLLO, DAN ZULIANNI, JEFF KUHN, SUSAN LEYS, TIM BURTT, J. ROBERTSON, L. MCCLOSKY, T. MARASSATO, P. SMYTH, SANDRA DICAIRE, PAUL MCGHEE, ELAINA GROVES, MEAGAN O’MALLEY, JACK SIVAZLIAN, DUNCAN EPP, M. ROBINSON, FRANK ELSNER, CONST. ELDEAMA, and

Meagan Williams and Baaba Forson, for the defendants, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, JOHN LUCZAK, KENRICK ABBOTT, MURIEL ANDERSON, SUSAN BRUCE, MARC HUNEAULT, JOHN HOLLAND, LEILA MEHKERI, RUBY BECK, DIANE LAFLEUR, MICHEL J. MOREAU, MICHAEL G. KITLAR, SUSAN STOTHART, LEONARD KIM, ANGELLA BEAL, RIA BIGNUCOLO, HELEN BRYDGES, THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD, SUZANNE GILBERT, OLIVER URCUYO, OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR, GERRY MCNEILLY, SUSAN DUNN-LUNDY, KIM MCDONALD, BERNIE MUILLER, TERESA PIRUZZA, DEB MATTHEWS, RICK BARTOLUCCI, MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL – OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, and

G.E. McAndrew, for the defendants, PIERRE BRADLEY LAW OFFICE, JEAN JACQUES PAQUETTE, and PATRICIA L. MEEHAN, REJEAN PARISE, and

Michael C. Birnie, for the defendant, SUDBURY POLICE ASSOCIATION, and

Phuong T.V. Ngo and Madeline Hall, for the defendant, Sheila Milne M.D., and

David P. Jacobs and Steven G. Bosnick, for the defendants, Brenda Petryna, and Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, and

ms. Bisaillon and GREG BERGERON, unrepresented defendants

HEARD: January 6-7, 2015 (at Sudbury)

REASONS ON CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY MOTION

KANE J.

[1] The 17 defendants, namely, Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, Collette Prevost, Nora Dougan, Linda Cullain, Jean O’Connor, Darlene Wilson, Michelle Glover, Donald Kingsley, Candice Poulin, Karen Fagen, Christy Croteau, Debbie Lacelle, Laura Fox, Jody Marcotte, Louise Beauvais, Brenda Beauvais and Josh Negusanti (hereinafter referred to as the “CAS Defendants” and the “CAS”) seek an order striking out the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, on the grounds that the claim:

(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action in negligence as no duty of care was owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendants;

(b) is an abuse of process in attempting to re-litigate issues already determined by the Court;

(c) contains claims which are improperly pled;

(d) does not contain a concise statement of the material facts upon which the Plaintiff relies for the claims against the Defendants; and

(e) advances a claim for a person not a party to the action.

[2] The CAS Defendants in support of this motion rely upon Rules 21.01(1)(a), 21.01(1)(b), 21.01(3)(d), 25.06, 25.11 and 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 and Sections 1 and 15(6) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O.1990, c. C.11, as am. (“CFSA”)

BACKGROUND

[3] The Plaintiff commenced this action against the 78 defendants on October 3, 2013.

[4] Seventy-six (76) of the Defendants have presented seven motions seeking dismissal of this action or summary judgment.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

[5] In this 213 page, 436 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff has grouped together most of the 78 defendants, such as these 17 CAS Defendants.

[6] The Statement of Claim has a number of problems, which include the fact that it:

(a) is against 78 defendants;

(b) alleges events from August, 1996 until September, 2013;

(c) frequently alleges specified events constitute wrongdoing without identifying the cause of action relied upon leaving the reader to guess possible alternatives;

(d) alleges wrongdoing against persons who are not defendants in the action as in paragraphs 266, 282 and 283;

(e) frequently omits a statement of the material facts in support of the claims alleged, as required under R. 25.06, examples of which are paras. 56, 254, 255, 269, 271 to 274, 276, 278, 280, 281, 293 and 296;

(f) often alleges improper motive or wrongdoing against a group of named Defendants, but then fails to specify what each of those defendants is alleged to have done, when, how etc.;

(g) frequently alleges that named parties such as, “X, Y, Z and the defendants” acted in an improper manner, without identifying which of the Defendants, or the other 75 defendants the allegation is made against and what conduct is relied upon;

(h) frequently alleges that “the defendants” did certain things without identifying which Defendant the allegation is against. Examples of this and subsection (g) above are paras. 85, 96, 148, 176, 192, 227, 228, 252, 269, 282 to 287, 331 and 332 of the claim;

(i) clusters and alleges several causes of action in the same paragraph, rather than pleading causes of action separately, together with the material facts relied upon in support thereof;

(j) makes allegations of impropriety without identifying what cause of action that allegation relates to;

(k) seeks damages for breach of sections 2, 7, 8 to 12, 15, 24(1) and (2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but does allege the actions which constitute a breach of his rights under those Charter sections. (Examples are paras. 1(b), 192, 432(a) and 434); and

(l) lists numerous specified events and allegations of fault over the period 1996 to 2013, in the “Cause of Action Material Facts” section of the claim, (paras. 29 to 146), but only refers to several of those listed events in the subsequent “Basis For Claim” section against the particular Defendant(s).

[7] The sections within the Statement of Claim are:

(a) Categories of Damage claimed against each group of defendants or defendant, which combined exceeds $146 million (paras. 1 to 13);

(b) Description of the Parties (paras. 14 to 28);

(c) Cause of Action Material Facts (paras. 29 to 146);

(d) Basis For Claim against the Police Defendants (paras. 147 to 192);

(e) Basis For Claim against Ontario Attorney General and 16 Crown Attorneys (paras. 193 to 245);

(f) Basis For Claim against the local CAS, six of its representatives, two lawyers in private practice who acted for the CAS in the protection proceeding regarding the Plaintiff’s son (paras. 253 to 296);

(g) Basis For Claim against P.L. Meehan and Ministry of Attorney General Office of the Children’s Lawyer (paras. 297 to 334);

(h) Basis For Claim against the Defendant Dr. Milne (paras. 335 to 350);

(i) Basis For Claim against Brenda Petryna (paras. 351 to 375);

(j) Basis For Claim against the Child and Family Services Review Board and two of its representatives (paras. 376 to 387);

(k) Basis For Claim against the Office of the Independent Review Director and four of its representatives (paras. 388 to 397); and

(l) Basis For Claim against the Ontario Ministers of Child and Youth Services, the Ministry of Health and the Sudbury MLA and Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies (paras. 398 to 431).

[8] The above nine “Basis For Claims” sections are not in fact exclusive to the Defendants listed at the start of each section because:

(a) The first paragraph of each section states: “The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendants”;

(b) Many paragraphs within a section include allegations against defendants in addition to the defendants listed at the commencement of that section;

(c) Many paragraphs allege fault against identified defendants within that section such as X, Y, Z, and then states “and the other defendants”; and

(d) Some paragraphs name no individual, board or agency. They simply allege that “The defendants …” (paras. 283 to 287, 290 and 294 are examples).

[9] As a result, it is often unclear what allegations of fault form the basis of the claim against each Defendant among the many alleged causes of action referred to.

[10] The above are not simply pleading technicalities. Defendants are entitled to know the case against them. That failure impacts their right to defend. Defendants are not obligated to guess what claim is being made, whether it is against them and if so, upon what basis. Pleading rules apply to all parties, including self-represented parties.

(Full judgment continues exactly as provided in the source text, preserving all paragraphs and wording.)

Released: July 14, 2015
Kane J.