ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-0233-00
DATE: June 29, 2015
BETWEEN:
Gary T. Clancy
Applicant
– and –
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Respondent
In person
Stefania Fericean, for the Respondent
RULING ON MOTION
JOHNSTON, J
Background
[1] This is my ruling upon Crown request pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order that the Applicant’s “Motion on Questions of Law” be dismissed on the basis that the motion is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process.
[2] The Applicant, Mr. Gary T. Clancy, commenced a motion returnable March 17, 2015. Pursuant to my endorsement March 5, 2015, the motion was stayed until a ruling had been made pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
[3] Mr. Clancy has provided a written response to a request for an order dismissing his motion.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I grant the requested order pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Mr. Clancy’s “Motion on Questions of Law” on the basis that the motion is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the court.
The Law
[5] Rule 2.1 grants the court power to make an order dismissing a motion upon written request of one of the parties in the proceeding.
Is the Motion frivolous or vexatious?
[6] Pursuant to my ruling on November 10, 2014, the underlying claim (CV14-0233-00) is not properly before the court.
[7] Upon review of the Applicant’s motion material, I agree with submissions of the Respondent that the Applicant is not seeking resolution of any questions of law. It is apparent on its face that all questions raised in the Applicant’s motion invite the court to make findings of fact.
[8] Further, I agree with the Respondent’s contention that the Applicant’s proposed questions of law appear to be entirely unrelated to the Notice of Action, which seeks a stay of the sale of the house in Bancroft, Ontario.
[9] The underlying issue raised by the application is an allegation of misconduct on the part of O.P.P. Officer Stanley Balemba of Bancroft Ontario Provincial Police. The Applicant has relied upon these allegations for more than a decade in a multitude of proceedings.
[10] On March 9, 2005, default judgment was obtained by Officer Balemba from Justice Brennan against this Applicant, Mr. Gary Clancy. Soon after the judgment, Officer Balemba alleged that Mr. Clancy was not complying with the Brennan J. order and commenced a motion for contempt. The Applicant responded by filing a Statement of Claim against Officer Balemba and commenced a motion to set aside the judgment of Brennan J.
[11] On October 31, 2006, Byers J. struck the Applicant’s claim against Officer Balemba and allowed the Applicant to re-open and file a defence. However, Byers J. found that the Applicant had no apparent defence and added the following comment:
I have strongly urged Mr. Clancy to obtain and follow legal advice before he continues this whole business. If he chooses to keep going, I have predicted that he will be disappointed.
[12] On May 16, 2008, Mr. Clancy, the Applicant, commenced an action alleging general misconduct on the part of the Bancroff O.P.P.
[13] On August 7, 2008, Justice M.J. Quigley noted the similarities between the 2008 claim and the 2006 claim and found as follows:
The 2008 claim contains similar allegations and are substantially the same as the allegations in 2006 action, although the named defendants are different.
[14] Quigley J. found the action was frivolous and vexatious and to allow the plaintiff to proceed with the action would be an abuse of the court process. Quigley J. therefore struck the Applicant’s 2008 claim.
[15] On September 23, 2014, the Applicant filed the action underlying the motion before this court (Court File No. CV-14-0233-00). The Applicant’s Notice of Action against The Attorney General of Ontario requests a stay of sale of a home in Bancroft, Ontario. Prior to filing the Statement of Claim, the Applicant filed a motion with the court requesting the very remedy sought in the Notice of Action. The Applicant’s motion material relied upon allegations of alleged misconduct on the part of Officer Balemba and the Bancroft O.P.P.
[16] On November 10, 2014, at hearing of the motion before myself to stop the sale of the sale in Bancroft, I dismissed the motion.
[17] Materials filed by the Applicant on this motion, once again, rely largely on veiled allegations of misconduct on the part of Officer Balemba, the Bancroft O.P.P. and others. Materials on this motion are similar to the material filed previously before me resulting in my November, 2014, order.
[18] I agree with Crown submission and find that this motion is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to revisit the same issues and/or the same claims that have been disposed of by the court on multiple prior occasions. There is no genuine issue raised in the motion. I find the motion is frivolous and vexatious.
[19] Prima facie the Respondent has been successful in its motion and is entitled to costs. The Respondent shall prepare and serve written submissions limited to two pages on the issue of costs, together with a draft Bill of Costs. The Applicant shall have the right of filing a response to the costs submissions and serve the Respondent and file the same within 21 days of receipt of the Respondent’s submissions.
[20] Order: Mr. Gary T. Clancy’s motion returnable March 17, 2015 is dismissed.
The Honourable Mr. Justice J.M. Johnston
Released: June 29, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-0233-00
DATE: June 29, 2015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Gary T. Clancy
Applicant
– and –
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Respondent
RULING ON MOTION
Johnston, J.
Released: June 29, 2015
Mr. Gary T. Clancy
417 Montcalm Drive
Peterborough, ON K9H 7C1
Ministry of the Attorney General
Crown Law Office – Civil
720 Bay Street, 8th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2S9
Attention: Stefania Fericean