COURT FILE AND PARTIES

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526699
DATE: 20150630

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

DAVE MADEN

Plaintiff

-AND-

JAMES LONGSTREET, MR. & MRS. BARRY LACROIX, LACROIX CONSTRUCTION, THE LAW SOCIETY, AND DOE’S I THRU XX

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: June 30, 2015

endorsement

[1] By Endorsement dated May 27 2015, reported at 2015 ONSC 3425, I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff in form 2.1A that the court was considering dismissing his action for being frivolous, vexatious, and abuse of process. The plaintiff has provided written submissions in accordance with the notice received.

[2] In my prior Endorsement, I expressed concern that the plaintiff’s statement of claim did not clearly articulate the misconduct alleged against the various defendants. In his submissions, the plaintiff explains that he believes that he paid for services received from the defendant Lacroix but the defendant disagreed and was rude. Apparently, the defendant Longstreet is a lawyer who acted for Mr. Lacroix or his business and obtained default judgment for them against the plaintiff in Small Claims Court. The plaintiff also complains that Mr. Longstreet has not provided him with copies of affidavits that he filed with the Small Claims Court.

[3] It is apparent from the plaintiff’s submissions that he has no cause of action against the Law Society of Upper Canada. Moreover, Mr. Madden has his rights in the Small Claims Court including a right of appeal (if the case is of sufficient size so that an appeal right exists). However, one cannot sue in this court concerning a matter already before another court. Re-litigating a matter that is already the subject of proceedings before another court is an abuse of process. Moreover, it is vexatious to add as a party an opponent’s legal counsel absent a proper cause of action.

[4] It is plain and obvious that this action cannot succeed on the pleading as written. 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.

[5] The action is therefore dismissed.

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

[7] 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).

[8] No orders to costs.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: June 30, 2015