Ebriniss v. D’Ovidio et al., 2015 ONSC 4649

CITATION: Ebriniss v. D’Ovidio et al., 2015 ONSC 4649

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-528131
DATE: 2015-07-20

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

SALAH EBRINISS Plaintiff

-AND-

GAETANO D’OVIDIO and JOSEPH MARCHESE and CITY OF TORONTO Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: July 20, 2015

Endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of lawyers for the City of Toronto under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The plaintiff is self-represented. He pleads that he is 53 years old and that prior to the events in issue he enjoyed a successful and promising career as a refrigeration and general service provider. On May 13, 2013, the plaintiff pleads that he agreed to install a business sign on a building for the defendant Marchese for $50.00. While he was installing the sign, the plaintiff pleads that he touched an old B/X wire that sent a 120 volt shock through his body. He fell to the City sidewalk below and suffered serious injuries.

[3] The plaintiff issued the statement of claim on May 15, 2015. It appears that he may have been one day too late. The plaintiff sues the owner of the building owner for failing to keep its wiring safe.

[4] The statement of claim provides no basis for asserting liability against the City of Toronto. The plaintiff pleads only that the City owns the sidewalk on which he landed. Moreover, it seems apparent on the face of the statement of claim that there is no basis upon which the City of Toronto can be found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. No basis for occupier’s liability is pleaded. Nor do the facts pleaded give any basis upon which occupier’s liability might be inferred by reading the pleading generously.

[5] Writing statements of claim can be very difficult and technical. As a self-represented litigant, the plaintiff is entitled to certain leeway in respect of practices with which he may be unfamiliar. However the law applies to all parties whether they are represented by counsel or not. Pleadings, including statements of claim, are important documents. They give the other parties notice of the substance of the claims being made against them or the defences alleged. Once pleadings are closed, the issues joined in the pleadings define the scope of documentary and oral discovery in the action. There are therefore rules that apply to the contents of pleadings. For example, under Rule 25.06, a statement of claim must set out a concise statement of the material facts that provide a basis upon which a court could hold the defendants liable after trial. The statement of claim currently sets out no basis for the plaintiff to successfully sue the defendant City of Toronto.

[6] The plaintiff should be given an opportunity to file written argument with the court as to why the claim against the City of Toronto should not be dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face.

[7] The plaintiff should seek legal advice to determine if he has a basis to sue the City of Toronto and, if so, how to do so.

[8] If the plaintiff cannot afford a lawyer or paralegal to help him understand his legal rights and obligations, he may be able to obtain free legal help from:

a. Law Help Ontario, 393 University Ave., Room 110, Toronto;

b. Downtown Legal Services, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 655 Spadina Avenue, Toronto; or

c. Community Legal Aid Services Program, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Ignat Kaneff Building, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto.

[9] On 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 dismissing the action as against the City of Toronto;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the plaintiff’s claim against the City of Toronto 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 concerning the City of Toronto 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: July 20, 2015

[^1]: See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100 at para.