SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 15-65727
DATE: 20151126
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
HEARD: By written submissions
ENDORSEMENT
[1] By endorsement dated November 3, 2015, reported at 2015 ONSC 6812, I directed the registrar to send a notice in Form 2.1A to the Plaintiff inviting written submissions as to why the court should not dismiss this action as being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
[2] I have received the written submissions delivered by the Plaintiff. In her response, she proposes to deal with the six reasons set out at page 4 of my Endorsement. This is where I made a reference to Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664, [2014] O.J. No. 5430. I did not make specific findings under each of the examples cited by Justice Myers.
[3] At para. 11, 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.
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.
[4] The Plaintiff disputes that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’ is a court of competent jurisdiction because she claims that the judge/adjudicator did not act fairly, with integrity or justly and adds: “When an adjudicator starts a case by saying to “Back off Jill” which I thought was a question, but what the respondents had thought was an order and Kate Mceniry has acted upon same by lying first to Jill about what the adjudicator said and later by lying to the police in an electronic witness statement to protect the first lie told, shows at the very least, a conflict of interest by the adjudicator.”
[5] She further alleges that the Tribunal is not a court since it does not describe itself as such, but is rather a court “that coerces litigants to lie to the police about other litigants could hardly be considered one of competent jurisdiction”. She adds that the adjudicator’s action in sending his decision to the Ombudsman’s office’s office was an attempt to libel her. She further accuses me of bias by not referencing that fact it in my Endorsement.
[6] As for “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”, the Plaintiff ignores the first part of that sentence and denies that she has brought in a proceeding against any counsel. This is contradicted by her Notice of Motion originally returnable on November 17, 2015 wherein she indicated her intention to pursue criminal charges against David Law. She repeated this intention in separate correspondence to me where she also asked me to recuse myself.
[7] As for the persistent pursuit of unsuccessful appeals; the Plaintiff asks that I provide her with proof. I consider the Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to be an unsuccessful appeal.
[8] I made no reference to costs in my Endorsement. As for the fifth item on the list, the Plaintiff claims: “Had the plaintiffs and the police not lied etc., and the Greenboro Community Centre would not have ceased to be in operation when the fraud – scamming the Ontario Disability Service Program (ODSP) was reported in about February 2015 and Sandra Sparling would not have been revomed (sic) from her position with the police services as an investigator.”
[9] As for the sixth point: namely, bringing a proceeding where no reasonable person would expect to obtain the relief sought; the Plaintiff adds: “Please be advised that I used an example of an actual “cause of action” that I had seen where the allegations were similar t mine: Mr. Beaudoin seems to have made up his mind (fixed the outcome) as to whether or not it would be successful.”
[10] She then highlights the next section WAS NOT REREAD AS TIME DID NOT PERMIT. She repeats the history of her complaint against the Greenboro Defendants and the police. The last two pages are printed in a bold font, occasionally using capital letters. She accuses the Defendants of having fed lies to her son which led to his committing suicide on October 21, 2015 and her subsequent homelessness. If these last two events are true, this is indeed extremely unfortunate, but a decision to continue these proceedings cannot be based on sympathy alone.
[11] The Plaintiff completely ignores that she requested, in her Notice of Motion, that these proceedings be heard by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. This was based on her belief that she cannot get a fair trial from a judge of this Court, notwithstanding that she has commenced an action in the Superior Court of Justice. On this critical point, the Plaintiff has sought relief that she cannot possibly obtain.
[12] A review of her submissions reinforces my belief that the Plaintiff is seeking to re-litigate issues that were already decided by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and has sought relief in this Court that no reasonable person could expect to obtain. She also continues her attack against opposite counsel and the Human Right’s Tribunal Adjudicator, Mark Hart. In Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 2915, [2015] O.J. No. 976, the court held at para. 10: “Moreover, and attack against counsel opposite and binding decisions made in other litigation is a typical sign of a vexatious litigant that justifies resort to the attenuated process of rule 2.1.”
[13] This action is therefore dismissed. The court dispenses with any requirement to obtain the Plaintiff’s approval as to the form and content of the draft order.
[14] The registrar shall send a copy of this Endorsement to the Plaintiff by regular mail to her address for service on the Statement of Claim. The Defendants shall serve a copy of the formal order on the Plaintiff by regular mail at her address for service on the Statement of Claim.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: November 26, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 15-65727
DATE: 20151126
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
HEARD: By written submissions
ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: November 26, 2015