SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-527499
DATE: 20150630

B E T W E E N:

HURONTARIO TRAVEL CENTRE

Plaintiff

-AND-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in Right of Ontario as represented by THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: June 30, 2015

endorsement

[1] By Endorsement dated May 25, 2015, reported as 2015 ONSC 3296, I directed the registrar to send the plaintiff a notice, in form 2.1A, that the court was considering dismissing this action for being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The plaintiff has responded with written submissions in the form of an affidavit sworn by its owner Mr. King.

[2] In my prior Endorsement, I discussed three prior attempts made by Mr. King to bring proceedings arising out of failed prosecution of his travel agency business in 2000. The Crown withdrew the charges in June of 2000. The plaintiff and Mr. King have sued for malicious prosecution twice previously. Both actions were dismissed. Both dismissals were upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. In addition, Mr. King sought a form of order compelling the Crown to proceed with the withdrawn charges. That request was denied by Judge Duncan of the Ontario Court of Justice.

[3] The plaintiff is clear in its submissions that Mr. King believes it necessary to “reiterate my on-going quest for natural justice in assisting the stranded customers” of his business. The customer complaints of which he writes arose in 1995 and 1996. The charges that are the subject of statement of claim were withdrawn 15 years ago.

[4] It is time for the plaintiff’s quest to come to an end. He has already been informed by the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice McEwen of this court and the Ontario Court of Appeal that the legal doctrine of res judicata prevents him from re-litigating his malicious prosecution cause of action.

[5] Mr. King raises a number of points in the plaintiff’s submissions. He expresses concern that the form 2.1A may have been incorrectly addressed although it bears his correct address on its face. He argues that the first decision of Dunn J. in 2006 related to prior charges in respect of a different alleged licensing offence. However a review of the decision, including, in particular, paragraph 31, makes it clear that the charges are the ones referred to in the statement of claim herein. Mr. King then reviews some of his customers’ complaints and raises his own complaints concerning the alleged failure of the government compensation system to properly provide for his customers. This has no bearing on whether his current litigation is an impermissible attempt to re-litigate prior decisions of the court. Finally, Mr. King asks for the same relief that he was already denied by Judge Duncan seeking to force the Crown to bring on charges against the business so as to exonerate the business and Mr. King. Judge Duncan held that there was no basis in law to force the Crown to prosecute.

[6] The plaintiff’s statement of claim seeks only damages rather than the relief of compelling prosecution as mentioned in Mr. King’s affidavit. The fact that he raised that head of relief however makes it even clearer that Mr. King is seeking to re-litigate prior judicial determinations that are binding on him and the corporate plaintiff in this proceeding.

[7] While one can empathize with Mr. King’s concern about the bringing of charges that did not ultimately proceed, it happened a very long time ago. The civil law is not a forum for long-term quests for exoneration. It is time for this matter to be put to rest and for Mr. King to move on. It is plain and obvious that this action cannot succeed on the statement of claim on its face. The action also falls within the types of cases for which the abbreviated process of rule 2.1 is appropriate. Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 at para. 9.

[8] The action is therefore dismissed. The defendant is entitled to costs if demanded payable forthwith after assessment by an assessment officer.

[9] I dispense with any requirement for the plaintiff’s approval of the formal dismissal order as to form or content.

[10] I direct the registrar to provide a copy of this endorsement to the parties by mail and email (to those whose email addresses it has) and to serve the formal order on the plaintiff in accordance with rule 2.1.01(5)

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: June 30, 2015