SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cheryl Obermuller

Plaintiff

-AND-

Kenfinch Co-Operative Housing Inc., Josephina Boto, Iler Campbell, Celia Chandler,

Joseph Van Tassel and Sylvia Watson

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: September 30, 2015

endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(6) following receipt of written requests of counsel for the defendant Sylvia Watson, and for the defendant Joseph Van Tassel.

[2] The statement of claim and its thick sheaf of attachments describe a dispute that has been ongoing for at least a decade between the plaintiff and the cooperative corporation of which she used to be a member. In 2014 the co-op brought a proceeding against the plaintiff before the Landlord and Tenant Board to seek her eviction. The co-op was successful. The plaintiff appealed her eviction to the Divisional Court and she sought judicial review at the same time. After several procedural hearings to which the plaintiff takes strong exception, her court proceedings were quashed. She has sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Court of Appeal refused to stay the eviction order pending the appeal. The plaintiff then returned to this court seeking a last-minute stay of the eviction. That stay was denied because this court had no jurisdiction to deal with a matter that is before the Court of Appeal.

[3] The plaintiff was therefore evicted from her co-op unit on September 2, 2015 in accordance with subsisting orders of the tribunal and the court.

[4] The plaintiff does not accept that she was dealt with fairly or lawfully. She brings this lawsuit against the member of the Landlord and Tenant Board who decided her case, an employee of the court, the co-op, counsel for the co-op, and the manager of the co-op who swore an affidavit of service.

[5] It is an abuse of process to re-litigate the outcome of other legal proceedings in new litigation. Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E,. 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77.

[6] Members of the Landlord and Tenant Board are immune from lawsuits concerning their adjudicative duties. Raba v. Wronecki et al., 2015 ONSC 20 at para 39.

[7] Counsel for opposing litigants owe no duties to the other opposite party. Biron v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 558 at para 6.

[8] Accordingly, it appears that the plaintiff’s claim may be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process on its face. The plaintiff should therefore be given an opportunity to make written submissions to the court as to why her claim should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure at this time.

[9] I note that I paid no heed to the unsworn submissions of the defendants who requisitioned the registrar. Rule 2.1.01(6) does not allow for unsworn evidence or submissions to be made when seeking a requisition under that rule. Rather, Rules 2.1.01(3) and (4) govern if and when submissions will be sought from a defendant. Covenoho v Ceridian Canada, 2015 ONSC 2468.

[10] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to Rule 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); and

d. In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(5), 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: September 30, 2015

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