COURT FILE AND PARTIES

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-528131 DATE: 20150824

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

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

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated July 20, 2015, reported at 2015 ONSC 4649, the court directed the registrar to send a notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court was considering dismissing the plaintiff’s action against the City of Toronto under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process on its face. The registrar sent the notice as required. The plaintiff responded with written submissions dated August 4, 2014.

[2] The plaintiff is self-represented. In the statement of claim, 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] There is nothing alleged in the statement of claim that might make the City liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. In his written submissions, the plaintiff provides some details of his retaining solicitors and sending notices to various parties including the City. He discusses his injuries in a manner that suggests that there may be an issue as to whether the limitation period might have been deferred by incapacity for a period of time. The only submission that he makes concerning the City’s potential liability is that his former lawyers told him that the City should be a defendant. The lawyers put the City on notice. The City referred the matter to its insurance adjusters who responded to preserve the City’s rights.

[4] The plaintiff does not claim that the accident was caused or contributed to by anything done or not done by the City. The statement of claim is clear that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by an electric shock that he received from a wire on the building that caused him to fall. The plaintiff has not obtained legal advice to help him state a case against the City despite the admonition to him in my prior endorsement. He says that he is pursuing the claim against all of the defendants until he retains new lawyers and that he has been advised “that the City is a party to my proceedings against them.”

[5] This action against the City cannot succeed. It is frivolous and vexatious on the face of the pleadings. The statement of claim and the plaintiff’s submissions satisfy me as well that this is a case in which the attenuated process of Rule 2.1 is appropriate. Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 at para. 9.

[6] The action against the City of Toronto is therefore dismissed. The defendant, City of Toronto is entitled to costs if demanded payable forthwith after assessment by an assessment officer.

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

[8] 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: August 24, 2015