SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

W.D.M. AND T.D. B.L.

Plaintiffs

-AND-

HANRAHAN YOUTH SERVICES, HATS OFF SPECIALIZED SERVICES, NATIVE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES OF TORONTO and MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: December 22, 2015

endorsement

[1] By letter dated December 3, 2015, the plaintiff W. M. asks the court to direct the registrar to send notices in Form 2.1A to the defendants Native Child and Family Services and Ministry of Children and Youth Services. The plaintiff seeks to invoke Rule 2.1.02 to strike motions brought by those defendants to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the motions are frivolous and vexatious on their face. The motions seek to dismiss the plaintiffs’ lawsuit under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a cause of action among other things.

[2] A party requesting relief under Rule 2.1.01(6) is not entitled to deliver submissions supporting the request. Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801, at paras. 10 to 12. The plaintiff has nevertheless provided reasons for his request. In this unusual circumstance, I propose to deal with those reasons.

[3] First, Mr. W.M. objects to the defendants’ motions because, he says, the defendants caused the plaintiffs harm. But that conclusion is not made until the end of the lawsuit. There is nothing wrong with a defendant bringing a motion to try to strike a claim before the substance of the case is determined. Rules 2.1, 20, 21 and 25.11 allow for just that. The bringing of a motion under any of those rules is not in itself an abuse of process.

[4] Second, Mr. W.M. says that the defendants’ motions should be dismissed because the defendants have been served with the statement of claim and have not responded to the claim as yet. That too is allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure mentioned above other than Rule 20.

[5] Third, the plaintiff says that the co-plaintiff Ms. B.L. may require a litigation guardian under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This is not a basis to find a motion to strike the claim to be frivolous or vexatious. Rather, it raises questions as to how Mr. W.M. purports to bring this action on Ms. B.L.’s behalf without being either a lawyer or having been appointed a litigation guardian.

[6] Finally, Mr. W.M. objects to the fact that the defendants’ motions to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) are brought on the basis that the moving defendants owed no duties of care to Ms. B.L.. Mr. W.M. says that the motions are frivolous and vexatious because Ms. B.L.’s causes of action are not based on a duty of care. Rather, he says that her causes of action are based upon improper Child Protection proceedings that were brought concerning him that caused injury to Ms. B.L. and breached her constitutional rights, the “United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children.” There is nothing abusive on the face of the defendants’ motions on this ground. Mr. W.M. does not have legal training and does not understand that an allegation that the defendants owed no duties of care to the plaintiffs is just arguing that none of the allegations in the statement of claim give the plaintiffs a legal right to sue those defendants. The judge who hears the defendants’ motions is the proper person to determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to advance a lawsuit against the moving defendants on the bases claimed.

[7] This application is not a proper use of Rule 2.1.01(6). There is no basis on the face of the defendants’ proposed motions to dismiss them for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the processes of the court.

[8] The plaintiffs’ request is itself another frivolous and vexatious step by Mr. W.M. in a legal proceeding before this court. It had no legal merit. Mr. W.M. is well along the path towards establishing himself as a vexatious litigant under s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43.

[9] Mr. W.M. should reassess his decision to bring numerous legal proceedings now that he has turned 18. He should quickly seek legal advice to avoid racking up any more large costs awards against him that will quickly exhaust whatever resources he may have or hope to have. If Mr. W.M. cannot afford a lawyer, Law Help Ontario provides free legal assistance at 393 University Ave Suite 110, Toronto, ON, M5G 1E6 (416) 628-3552. In addition, Downtown Legal Services at the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto can be reached at law.dls@utoronto.ca or 416 934-4535. Osgoode Hall Law School at York University also provides free legal services through Community & Legal Aid Services Programme (CLASP) that can be reached at (416) 736-5029.

[10] I therefore decline to direct the registrar to send notices in Form 2.1A to the defendants in this case.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: December 22, 2015