SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

WILLIAM DALE MACLEOD and TAMMY DORIS BRIDGET LARONDE

Applicants

-AND-

BELL CANADA ENTERPRISES AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES; BELL HOME SERVICES, VIRGIN MOBILE, SOLO MOBILE, ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES; ROGERS CANADA, FIDO MOBILE, TELUS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES; TELUS MOBILE, KOODO MOBILE and YAK CANADA

Respondents

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: December 22, 2015

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated November 17, 2015, reported at 2015 ONSC 7116, I directed the registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff that the court was considering dismissing this application as against the defendant Yak Canada for being frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.

[2] The plaintiff has delivered a written submission dated December 7, 2015.

[3] The notice of application seeks no relief against the respondent Yak Canada and makes no allegations against it. The application as against Bell, Telus, and Rogers was dismissed by order of Stinson J. on December 8, 2015. In his submissions in this written hearing, the applicant seeks relief against the motions brought by the other defendants that have already been heard by Stinson J. That is not open to him in this process. As against Yak Canada he notes only that Yak Canada is in default and he has not heard from it.

[4] Yak Canada is not in default as I stayed the application against it in my prior endorsement.

[5] There is no basis upon which the plaintiff can possibly succeed in this application against Yak Canada on the face of the notice of application. Moreover, the plaintiff’s pleading and submissions show signs of vexatious litigation. This is an application to which Rule 2.1 readily applies.

[6] The application is dismissed without costs. The court dispenses with any requirement that the plaintiff approve the form or content of the formal dismissal order.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: December 23, 2015