Stefanizzi v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2015 ONSC 859
COURT FILE NO.: 26680/14
DATE: 20150205
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: JOHN STEFANIZZI and LORI STEFANIZZI , Plaintiffs
AND:
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, Defendant
BEFORE: Mr. Justice A. D. Kurke
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This matter is before me as a basket Motion pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, among other things:
2.1.01(1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
Summary Procedure
2.1.01(2) The court may make a determination under sub rule (1) in a summary manner, subject to the procedures set out in this rule.
2.1.01(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under sub rule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures:
The court shall direct the registrar to give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, that the court is considering making the order.
The plaintiff or applicant may, within 15 days after receiving the notice, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the notice.
If the plaintiff or applicant does not file a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may make the order without any further notice to the plaintiff or applicant or to any other party.
If the plaintiff or applicant files a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may direct the registrar to give a copy of the submission to any other party.
A party who receives a copy of the plaintiff's or applicant's submission may, within 10 days after receiving the copy, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the plaintiff's or applicant's submission, and shall give a copy of the responding submission to the plaintiff or applicant and, on the request of any other party, to that party.
[2] The Plaintiffs issued a Statement of Claim December 19, 2014 against the Defendant Landlord and Tenant Board (“the LTB”), alleging various errors committed by the LTB in dealing with a case involving the Plaintiffs as parties. The specific cause of action against the LTB is nowhere clearly stated in that Claim, although the Claim generally characterizes the decisions of the LTB and its members in the Plaintiffs’ case as abusive and illegal. A Statement of Defence was filed on January 12, 2015, asserting that the action is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the LTB is “not a suable entity”.
[3] By Notice dated January 22, 2015, the Registrar notified the Plaintiffs that the Court was considering an order staying the Plaintiffs’ action “because it appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court”, in the language of sub-rule 2.1.01(1). The Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to file written submissions, and they filed on January 30, 2015 a “Reply to Notice that Proceeding may be Stayed or Dismissed” (“the Reply”).
[4] While the Statement of Claim does not contain any narrative of the events that led to the action before this Court, the general outline of the Plaintiffs’ complaints can, with some difficulty, be pieced together from the Reply. It appears that the Plaintiffs had a lease/option agreement with other parties (variously described as “defendants” or “tenants” in the Reply) concerning real property. This agreement came before the LTB on some issue apparently relating to maintenance of the property. Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ position that the LTB had no jurisdiction over the matter, the LTB took jurisdiction over the lease aspect of the agreement, and left to the Court the resolution of issues concerning the purchase option. The Plaintiffs claim to have suffered substantial damages as a result of the decision of the LTB.
[5] There appears to have been an unsuccessful appeal of the LTB’s decision by the Plaintiffs to the Divisional Court (a fact I infer from the words attributed to Plaintiffs’ counsel in paragraph 36 of the Reply, that “[t]he Divisional Court supported the decision on the basis that tribunals are allowed great latitude in determining their own jurisdiction”).
[6] I have read the materials in the Court file, including Statements of Claim and Defence, and the Plaintiffs’ Reply. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of sub-rule 2.1.01(3) permit the Court to direct the Registrar to give a copy of the Plaintiffs’ submission to the LTB, so that the LTB might itself file a written submission on this issue. I do not require any further submissions.
[7] I am satisfied on the materials before the Court that:
a. The Plaintiffs were subject to an adverse decision of the LTB;
b. As was their right, the Plaintiffs conducted an appeal of the LTB decision to the Divisional Court, pursuant to s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.17 (“the RTA”);
c. The Divisional Court appears to have upheld the decision of the LTB;
d. Section 232(1) of the RTA (quoted in the Reply) protects the members of the LTB against proceedings for damages, “for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise of any power under this Act or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of such a duty or power”.
[8] The Reply contains assertions of legal and jurisdictional errors committed by members of the LTB in arriving at the impugned decision. At its highest, the Plaintiffs’ claim would seem to be that members of the LTB performed their duties in such bad faith or so poorly in the Plaintiffs’ case that the bar to civil action provided by s. 232 of the RTA should not apply.
[9] However, even on this construction, the fact of the ruling by the Divisional Court upholding the decision of the LTB negates any argument by the Plaintiffs that the LTB ruled improperly, and provides a full answer to the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in their Statement of Claim.
[10] If the Plaintiffs disagreed with the decision of the Divisional Court, their recourse was to seek redress by further appeal, and also to pursue their “tenants” by civil action regarding issues related to the purchase option, but not to resort to a civil action against the LTB.
[11] In all of the circumstances of this case, I find that this proceeding is, on its face, at the least frivolous, and, in the context of the ruling by the Divisional Court upholding the decision of the LTB, abusive. The Plaintiffs pursued an appeal of the LTB decision with which they did not agree, and were not successful in that appeal. To permit the plaintiffs now to relitigate the same issues in this forum in their hope that a different, conflicting result might ensue, would constitute an abuse of the Court’s process: Willmot v. Boutis, 2015 ONCA 72; Donmor Industries Ltd. v. Kremlin Canada Inc. (No. 1) (1991), 1991 7360 (ON SC), 6 O.R. (3d) 501 (O.C.G.D.), at 506.
[12] The proceeding is dismissed.
A.D. Kurke J.
Date: 20150205