SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carlos A. Mesa

Plaintiff

-AND-

TD Direct Investment, TD Waterhouse, TD Discount Brokerage & Associate Investment Branch Companies

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: October 14, 2015

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated September 4, 2015, reported at 2015 ONSC 5543, the court directed the registrar to send to the plaintiff a Form 2.1A inviting him to make written submissions as to why his action should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous and vexatious on its face.

[2] The plaintiff has now provided a volume of written submissions that consist of a form of draft Notice of Application for a purported combined class action judicial review proceeding in the Divisional Court against the defendants.

[3] The plaintiff’s claim as set out in his statement of claim is for damages arising from allegations that the defendants failed to pay to him amounts allegedly deposited in secret trust accounts opened for shareholders by the issuers of publicly traded securities. The trust accounts were said to be held in proxy accounts that were proven by the delivery to the plaintiff of proxy voting forms associated with the annual general meetings of the various issuers. In my prior endorsement, I explained that proxy voting forms do not evidence the existence of any secret trust funds and that such funds are not an incident of public corporation share ownership. I required the registrar to invite the plaintiff to make submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious on its face.

[4] The plaintiff’s responding submission/application is unintelligible. Try as I might, I cannot discern the meaning of the words used. I am cognizant that litigation that may appear to be frivolous and vexatious on its face may be masking a legitimate underlying issue that the plaintiff is unable to articulate with clarity. I have tried to discern the nature of the plaintiff’s complaint allowing for drafting weaknesses. It is obvious that he suffered some trading losses in his online trading accounts. However, there is no apparent basis to make claims for those losses against the defendants. In his initial statement of claim, he tried to blame his broker for being unable to access nonexistent secret trust accounts. Now, however, his complaints have expanded to encompass the following:

I strongly believe that the evidence undeniably proves that local corruption by the local official running the economy and corporate illicit behaviour, unjust corporate enrichment where, without the element of public interests at risk by state, where a protected market frame existed and through tactical deterrence by the defendants behaviour and local banking authority aimed to deferred Plaintiff’s access to personal accounts, investment, personal banking records, amounts listed claimed and further market transactions and regular banking activities be performed.

[5] It is plain and obvious that this action cannot succeed on the pleading as written or as the plaintiff has tried to explain it in his submission. 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.

[6] The action is therefore dismissed.

[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).

[9] One set of costs is payable by the plaintiff to the defendants jointly and severally in an amount to be fixed by an assessment officer if demanded.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: October 14, 2015