Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 3165-14

DATE: 2015-11-20

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Paul Pilon, Plaintiff

AND:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, The Greater Sudbury Police Services Board, Paul Rintala, Mark Kovala, Todd Gascon, Jeff Lock, Tim Burtt and Dan Markiewich, Defendants

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice John S. Poupore

COUNSEL:
Paul Pilon, acting in person

Connie Vernon, Counsel for the Defendants

HEARD: November 10, 2015

ENDORSEMENT on motion

[1] The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (“the Crown”) brings a motion to strike out and dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against it pursuant to Rules 21 and 25.

[2] The plaintiff’s claims against the Crown are founded upon tort and breach of the plaintiff’s Charter rights. At the hearing I found that the claims made by the plaintiff against the Crown in tort were a nullity for the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the notice provision found in the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.27.

[3] With respect to the claimed Charter breaches, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Prete v. Ontario (1993), 1993 3386 (ON CA), 16 O.R. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), held that a statutory enactment purporting to immunize the Crown through a six months limitation period could not shield it from s. 24(1) Charter claims. This was confirmed in Alexis v. Darnley, 2009 ONCA 847, 100 O.R. (3d) 232.

[4] The Statement of Claim commencing at paragraph 80 purports to set out the plaintiff`s claims against the Crown under ss. 6(2)(b), 7, 9, 11(b), 11(d) and 15 of the Charter. As best can be discerned, the facts relied upon are claims of unreasonable bail conditions imposed by the bail court, detention ordered by the court which lasted nine days before bail was granted, and conflict of interest by a Crown.

[5] The Statement of Claim is in no way a concise statement of material facts supporting a viable cause of action. It is a loose set of paragraphs which rambles on in the hope of making out a case. None of the allegations against the Crown under the heading Charter breaches rise to the level of being able to support a claim of malicious conduct on the part of the Crown. In fact, none of the very few relevant facts pled by the plaintiff against the Crown would support a damages claim. Any of the other facts pled in support of the Charter breaches constitute a collateral attack on the judiciary that conducted and disposed of the bail application brought by the plaintiff who was represented by counsel.

[6] I am satisfied that there are no facts set out in the Statement of Claim under Charter breaches that can support a determination that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.

[7] Having disposed of the plaintiffs claims for damages in tort at the hearing and his claims for damages for Charter breaches herein, the defendant Crown shall have judgment dismissing all the plaintiffs claims against it with costs.

[8] The defendant Crown shall have 15 days to file and serve its bill of costs and thereafter the plaintiff shall have a further 15 days to respond. Both submissions shall be in writing and limited to 15 pages each.

The Honourable Mr. Justice John S. Poupore

Date: November 20, 2015