SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

DATE: 20150727

B E T W E E N:

GORDETTE JEAN G. GALLION
Plaintiff

-and-

ONTARIO MORTGAGE CORPORATION
Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: July 27, 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 counsel for the defendant under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The first sentence of the plaintiff’s handwritten statement of claim begins, “[i]n the name of God I will not file any Motion nor will I go to Court.” Yet she purports to sue the government in the name of an entity that she refers to as “Ontario Mortgage Corporation.” She acknowledges in her pleading that she does not know the current name of the entity. The Attorney-General quite fairly accepted service of the statement of claim.

[3] The subject matter of the lawsuit involves the eviction of the plaintiff from a condominium unit by her government mortgagee in July of 1980. The plaintiff pleads that there were no arrears when the mortgagee enforced the mortgage and sold the condominium. The plaintiff says that she urgently wants her property back. She wishes the government to relinquish her property with a settlement out of court. She raises a number of concerns with respect to alleged impropriety in the mortgage enforcement process. The statement of claim also mentions in passing prior legal proceedings in 2005. She encloses a doctor’s note indicating that due to health problems she could not attend court in September of that year. She also notes that she cannot attend court in 2015 as well.

[4] The subject matter of the proceeding is an eviction and mortgage enforcement that occurred 35 years ago. The limitation period seems to have expired long ago. Moreover, one cannot sue to claim an out of court settlement. While parties are always free to settle a lawsuit out of court if they both wish to do so, a lawsuit is a process that requires court proceedings. You cannot sue someone by saying that in no circumstances do you wish to go to court. Finally, I note that if the condominium unit was sold by the mortgagee 35 years ago, then the government has no ability to return it to the plaintiff in any event. Someone else owns it. There have probably been a number of owners who have bought and sold the unit over the decades. In all, it appears that the courts cannot award what the plaintiff wants even if she was entitled to sue.

[5] It appears on the face of the pleading that this claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the processes of the court. The plaintiff should be provided with an opportunity to make try to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed.

[6] 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;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the plaintiff’s action 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 in this action 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 defendant by email if it has their email addresses.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: July 27, 2015

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