SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
WILLIAM DALE MACLEOD
Applicant
-AND-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
Respondent
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
READ: December 22, 2015
endorsement
1By endorsement dated November 20, 2015, reported as 2015 ONSC 7240, I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff that the court was considering dismissing this proceeding for being frivolous or vexatious on its face under Rule 2.1.01(1).
2The Applicant has responded with submissions seeking to explain his proceeding. The Applicant has just turned 18 years of age and has commenced a number of legal proceedings in which he seeks to remedy perceived wrongs. He advises in his submissions that in this action he is seeking OSAP benefits without undergoing a credit check or having a co-signor. He also asks for the revocation of a number of orders for mental health assessment that seem to have been made against him in other litigation. Finally he seeks revocation of orders of another judge of this court in another matter on the basis that the orders are unconstitutional and violated Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and hence are void.
3While his explanation is somewhat more understandable than his statement of claim as drafted, it remains perfectly clear that the relief that the plaintiff seeks is not reasonably available in this proceeding. It is an abuse of process to challenge orders made in other proceedings in a fresh action. Moreover, his claim does not state a cognizable cause of action in respect of the OSAP regulatory process. Accordingly the action is dismissed without costs.
4I note that the plaintiff’s submissions were delivered in the form of an affidavit. In it, he swears that the judgment of a judge of this court is not professional and that the judge “has become incompetent.” I am very disturbed that a member of the legal profession swore this affidavit for the plaintiff. In Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 Rooke A.C.J. commented on the inappropriateness of lawyers swearing affidavits in vexatious proceedings. In the context of OPCA claimants, Rooke A.C.J. held:
645This Court has, on previous instances, drawn to the attention of the Law Society of Alberta that this kind of action is inappropriate for an officer of the court. It assists implementation of vexatious litigation strategies. In my view, a lawyer has a positive duty not to engage in a step that would ‘formalize’ (though typically in a legally irrelevant manner) an OPCA document. I have previously noted that certain OPCA gurus place a peculiar and mythical authority in a notary’s hands. A lawyer should not, directly or indirectly, reenforce, [sic] or support that purpose.
5The plaintiff’s affidavit consisted principally of submissions. Paragraphs 2 to 5 however were wholly improper as evidence and are scandalous at best. Any lawyer reviewing the document ought to have told the plaintiff so. Moreover, to the extent that a client properly advised insists on proceeding in such conduct, a lawyer should not be lending the imprimatur of his or her office to such misconduct.
6I dispense with any requirement for the plaintiff to approve the form or content of the formal order dismissing the action.
________________________________ F.L. Myers J.
Date: December 23, 2015