SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

GARY DAVID BROWN, AKA GARY DAVID ROBERT BROWN, STATION ATTENDANT EMERITUS

Plaintiff

-and-

LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED AND ITS EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT & CEO MR. GALEN G. WESTON, ITS EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER AND DIRECTOR MR. GORDON A.M. CURRIE, ITS DIRECTOR MR. STEPHEN E. BACHAND, ITS DIRECTOR MR. WARREN BRYANT, ITS DIRECTOR MS. CHRISTIE J.B. CLARK, ITS DIRECTOR MR. ANTHONY S. FELL AN OFFICER OF THE ORDER OF CANADA, ITS DIRECTOR MS. CHRISTIANE GERMAIN, ITS DIRECTOR MR. ANTHONY R. GRAHAM, ITS DIRECTOR MR. JOHN S. LACEY, ITS DIRECTOR MS. NANCY H. O. LOCKHART, ITS DIRECTOR MR. THOMAS C. O'NEILL, ITS DIRECTOR MR. VINCENT TRIUS AND ITS DIRECTOR MR. JOHN D. WETMORE, ITS PRESIDENT'S CHOICE BANK AND ITS CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR MR. ANTHONY R. GRAHAM AND ITS DIRECTOR MR. PAUL M. BEESTON, ITS PRESIDENT CHOICE FINANCIAL MASTERCARD DIVISION AND ITS EXECUTIVE CUSTOMER CARE MANAGER MR. TROY VINEOTTE AND MR. KIRC MURASKA, PETER'S NO FRILLS AND ITS OWNER/OPERATOR MR. KOFOED AND BUT WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL ASSIGNS AND AGENTS THEREOF AND ALL HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS OF SAME (“LOBLAWS”)

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: October 21, 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 the lawyers for the defendants under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The plaintiff styles himself as the “Station Attendant Emeritus.” He claims that he was approached by a salesperson at a No Frills store. The salesperson induced the plaintiff to apply for a President’s Choice Financial brand Mastercard although the plaintiff disclosed that he was on public assistance. The salesman offered the plaintiff incentives for applying for the credit card including: a free bag of President Choice Decadent brand chocolate cookies, a five-dollar voucher towards the credit card, and two twenty-dollar President’s Choice gift cards. The plaintiff agreed and applied for the credit card. He provided some personal information to the salesman in order to do so.

[3] The plaintiff received a letter in the mail indicating that he did not qualify for the credit card based on the information that he had provided. The plaintiff inquired of the President and CEO of Loblaws to ask him to explain why the plaintiff has never received the two $20 gift cards that he had been promised. In response, he was told informally by a representative of Loblaws that it had changed its policy and would provide four coupons worth 5,000 PC points each. The plaintiff continued to complain and “settled” by accepting Loblaws’ offer to send him by registered mail a President’s Choice gift card of nominal value. The plaintiff says that he has never received the gift card. He has however received several voicemail messages from Loblaws representatives indicating that the packages that they send to the plaintiff keep being returned by the courier company.

[4] The plaintiff has delivered an unissued amended claim that adds to his complaints allegations that Loblaws is wantonly duping people into providing it with their personal information so as to amass power and to control people. He sues Loblaws and a number of its directors, officers and divisions. In addition to claiming $99,000 from each defendant on each of a number of enumerated “counts,” he also seeks $10 million in cash and $10 million in preferred shares of Loblaw voting stock by way of punitive damages. He also asks for substantial additional injunctive relief and an order striking down all Ontario laws that allow Loblaws or any person to plant technologies that collect personal information.

[5] At its highest, the plaintiff has a claim for $40. Alternatively, he may have a claim for the value of the nominally valued gift card that the plaintiff has yet to receive. The plaintiff’s claims, if any, are based on alleged breaches of two oral contracts (one with the salesperson on behalf of the store or Loblaws and the other being the alleged oral settlement with Loblaws). If the plaintiff has proper claims, they lie in the Small Claims Court subject to that Court’s rules regarding claims for trivial amounts. The claim brought here is not that claim. On its face the statement of claim appears plead no valid claim against the individuals named on the bases set out. None of the claims listed in paras 26.8 to 28 of the statement of claim or in paras. 30 through 36 of the unissued amended claim appear to be tenable.

[6] On its face, the plaintiff’s claim appears to be frivolous and vexatious. The plaintiff ought to be provided with a brief opportunity to explain why his claim ought not to be dismissed for being frivolous and vexatious.

[7] 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 defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: October 21, 2015

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