SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 15-65727
DATE: 20151103
RE: Coralie Perkins-Aboagye, Plaintiff, self-represented
AND
Esther Becker jointly, severally and personally, Kate Mceniry jointly, severally and personally, Louise McGoey jointly, severally and personally, Kimberly Matte jointly, severally and personally, Greenboro Community Centre Association jointly, severally and personally, Sandra Sparling jointly, severally and personally, and Ottawa Police Services Board, jointly and severally, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
READ: November 3, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
[1] I have received two requests dated September 30, 2015 from the defendants pursuant to rules 2.1.01(6) and 2.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. One such request is made by the defendants, Becker, Mceniry, McGoey, Matte and the Greenboro Community Centre Association (the “Greenboro defendants”). The other request is made by the defendants, Sparling and the Ottawa Police Services Board.
[2] While no written submissions are attached to these requests, counsel for the Greenboro defendants has referred me to two decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal Ontario: Perkins-Aboagye v. Greenboro Community Centre Association, 2014 HRTO 1027 and Perkins-Aboagye v. Greenboro Community Centre Association, 2015 HRTO 270.
[3] Pursuant to rule 2.1 01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has general power to make an order staying or dismissing a proceeding if the proceeding “appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.”
[4] I have read the Statement of Claim advanced in this action. The plaintiff sets out her claims against each defendant separately. There are claims for damages for the Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty, the Tort of Negligence, the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Suffering and the Tort of Deceit. These are additional claims against some defendants for damages for the Tort of Reckless Endangerment, the Tort of Sander, the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Pain and Suffering, the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Physical Pain and Suffering. As against the defendant, Sparling, the plaintiff has added claims of the Tort of Battery, Harassment and Bullying. In the case of the defendant, Ottawa Police Services Board, she has added a claim of the Tort of Emotional Shock to the Plaintiff’s Entire System.
[5] At the outset of her claim, the plaintiff asks the following:
I am asking that this court recognizes the doctrine of unclean hands with regards to any motions filed by the defendants and that the defendants not benefit monetarily from costs relating to any motions filed, that the defendants be responsible for all costs associated with motions filed.
[6] Paragraph 3 (1) and 4 are fairly representative of the allegations found in the 90 paragraphs of the Statement of Claim. These state:
(1) DEFENDANT BECKER in committing the tort of negligence knew, knows or ought have known that her actions of having her staff file which she knew, knows or ought to have known were false statements to the police constitute a breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that everyone has a guarantee of Life, Liberty and Security of the person. In particular given the level of racism and the police force as evidenced by a $400,000 study completed earlier this year re racism in the force and given that said lies involved stalking of an instructor and which resulted in other lies being told in this regard and which has psychologically imprisoned the PLAINTIFF by considerably restricting my movements.
DEFENDANT BECKER in committing the tort of negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty knew, knows or ought to have known better actions would constitute a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Constituting Cruel and unusual Treatment and Punishment by the PLAINTIFF by refusing to allow the plaintiff and an instructor to communicate after having fed, along with others at the community centre, lies about the plaintiff to the instructor so that the plaintiff and the instructor would not be able to communicate about a scam is being run out of the Greenboro Community Centre to defraud the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) which is in violation of 380(1)(a)(b)(1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; this after the head instructor, policeman Louise McGoey had arranged for the plaintiff to fall on 20 September 2013 resulting in the plaintiff fracturing the elbow bone.
[7] These paragraphs refer to incidents and events arising from the plaintiff’s attendance at the Greenboro Community Centre in late 2013 and early 2014. These were the subject of the complaints by the plaintiff before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. All of the defendants other than the defendant, Sparling and the defendant Ottawa Police Services Board were named as respondents in those proceedings although the conduct of the police was in issue before the Tribunal and it was considered in its decisions. Sandra Sparling was the police officer involved.
[8] The first decision of the Tribunal resulted from two applications from the plaintiff that alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, sexual orientation and association with a person identified by a protected ground contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19. Those applications arose out of the events that occurred during Ms. Perkins-Aboagye’s use of recreational services offered by the Greenboro Community Centre.
[9] The Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether those applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that they succeed. After applying the summary hearing test, the adjudicator, Mark Hart, reviewed the allegations raised by Ms. Perkins-Aboagye and dismissed both applications as having no reasonable prospect of success. Ms. Perkins-Aboagye submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. After reviewing the considerable amount of material filed by Ms. Perkins-Aboagye since the date of his original decision, the adjudicator denied the Request for Reconsideration.
[10] In Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664, [2014] O.J. No. 5430 at paras 11 and 14, Justice Myers held that an attempt to re-litigate issues and add parties opposite who were involved in earlier decisions are recognized signs of vexatiousness that invites scrutiny under rule 2.1. He said:
11 Despite the use of generally appropriate language and form, this action is a typical step in the arsenal of a vexatious litigant. In Gao No. 2, supra, I found that rule 2.1 is properly engaged to stop an action that has the hallmarks on its face of a vexatious claims which can be described as follows:
14 The case law has identified a number of common attributes of a vexatious litigant under section 140 including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Bringing multiple proceedings to try to re-determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) Rolling forward grounds and issues from prior proceedings to repeat and supplement them in later proceedings including bringing proceedings against counsel who have acted for or against them in earlier proceedings;
(c) Persistent pursuit of unsuccessful appeals;
(d) Failure to pay costs awards of prior proceedings;
(e) Bringing proceedings for a purpose other than the assertion of legitimate rights, including to harass or oppress others;
(f) Bringing proceedings where no reasonable person would expect to obtain the relief sought.
See: Re Lang Michener et al. and Fabian et al., 1987 172 (ON SC) at pp. 5 and 6; Landmark Vehicle Leasing Corporation v. Marino, 2011 ONSC 1671, at para. 38.
[11] It is apparent on the face of the Statement of Claim and, having regard to the other proceedings initiated by this plaintiff, that this action is an attempt to re-litigate issues decided by the Human Rights Tribunal.
[12] Since initiating these proceedings, the plaintiff has filed a Notice of Motion now returnable in this court on November 17, 2015. In that motion, she seeks a number of items of relief which are relevant at this stage of the rule 2.1 inquiry. These are:
Show that the lawyer David Law violated sections 139.(2) - attempting to obstruct the defeat, pervert justice @ “D” of motion record, and 23.(1) - an accessory after the fact to an offence of the criminal code of Canada @ “E” of motion record with regards to the defendants mentioned in paragraph three above and it may not be prudent for him to represent said defendants especially considering that I am pursuing criminal charges as a private prosecutor to be heard in November 2015. Mr. Law is being named along with his clients concerning a lie deliberately told to the police on me on 31 May 2015.
Ask the court with regards to cost, that the “clean/unclean hands legal doctrine” be enforced.
Ask that this motion and other hearings pertaining to this proceeding be heard by Judge from the Ontario Court of Justice as I believe that they will be more fair and just by applying the law, rules etc. to all and not discriminate for any reason.
In a hand written addition, the plaintiff seeks:
- Retrieve from Mr. Law and or his clients correspondence I sent to the instructor, with her permission in October 2013 which were illegally obtained.
[13] It is clear from the grounds in support of her motion that the plaintiff believes that Mr. Law, who represented the Greenboro defendants before the Human Rights Tribunal should be prevented from representing the defendants. Moreover, she states her belief that she cannot get a fair trial from a judge from the Superior Court of Justice notwithstanding that she has commenced this action in this Court.
[14] In addition, the plaintiff is aware of the letters of request submitted by counsel in this matter. As a result, she addressed correspondence to me and warns that counsel for the Greenboro defendants “can be criminally charged for protecting her clients from being held accountable for their criminal activities.”
[15] In that correspondence, she has attached a document entitled Request for an Order During Proceedings – Rule 19 (form 10) wherein she names as respondents, the Ottawa police Services Board and Sandra Sparling. There is a separate request with respect to the Greenboro defendants to which a 22 page document is attached; and finally, there’s a request for documents.
[16] I cannot consider this correspondence to be the written submission in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3) 2. It is apparent that this action may be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the court and that resort to rule 2.1 is appropriate. I therefore make the following orders:
The Registrar is directed to give notice to the plaintiffs in form 2.1A that the Court is considering making an order under sub-rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action;
Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1, or further order of the court, the plaintiffs’ action is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
The Registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the plaintiffs written submissions if delivered in accordance with sub-rule 2.1.01(3).
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: November 3, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 15-65727
DATE: 20151103
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Coralie Perkins-Aboagye, Plaintiff, self-represented
AND
Esther Becker jointly, severally and personally, Kate Mceniry jointly, severally and personally, Louise McGoey jointly, severally and personally, Kimberly Matte jointly, severally and personally, Greenboro Community Centre Association jointly, severally and personally, Sandra Sparling jointly, severally and personally, and Ottawa Police Services Board, jointly and severally, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
READ: November 3, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: November 3, 2015