Purcaru v. Vacaru, 2016 ONSC 1037

CITATION: Purcaru v. Vacaru, 2016 ONSC 1037

COURT FILE NO.: 04-FD-299927-0003

DATE: 20160210

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Dan Purcaru, Applicant

AND:

Felicia Vacaru, Respondent

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: February 10, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request of the respondent under subrule 2.1.01(6). This application is governed by the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 140/15. Those rules do not have an equivalent to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is appropriate to incorporate Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure into the Family Law Rules under Rule 1(7) of the latter. The issue of dealing with vexatious litigants is a significant issue of access to justice that has been the subject of much concern. Rule 2.1 provides an important tool by which a subset of plainly vexatious claims can be dealt with summarily under an abbreviated process so as to avoid the costs and delays that can be inflicted by people who bring such litigation. Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 9.

[2] Rule 2.1 is designed to weed out frivolous and vexatious claims where it is apparent on the face of the claim that it fits that definition and where there is reason to be concerned that the litigation is likely to become a vehicle for a party who might be inclined to inflict the harms of frivolous proceedings on the opposing parties and the civil justice system. Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 12. No evidence is admissible on a review under Rule 2.1. However, the court may refer to prior decisions of the court where appropriate. Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801, at para. 11.

[3] The Applicant brings a motion to change the final order dated May 6, 2009 made by Paisley J. after trial. Mr. Purcaru’s pleadings were struck at the trial by Paisley J. due to Mr. Purcaru’s breaches of several court orders. The striking of his pleadings and the order made by Paisley J. were upheld by the Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal, Mr. Purcaru admitted to “egregious” breaches of several court orders that caused “serious prejudice” to his ex-wife and their two children.” Purcaru v Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92 at para. 34.

[4] Mr. Purcaru was held in contempt of court and served four months in jail for his breaches of court orders in the initial divorce application. Those breaches were never purged. Purcaru v Purcaru, 2011 ONSC 2320.

[5] He then brought a motion to change that took a substantial period of time and delayed the respondent’s efforts to enforce the trial judgment. He had his pleadings struck again in a fraudulent conveyance action brought by the respondent concerning Mr. Purcaru’s efforts to avoid his liabilities under Justice Paisley’s judgment. In striking Mr. Purcaru’s pleadings in the second application, Kelly J. found that he had made efforts to impede the course of justice for the applicant and their children. Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONSC 4031 at paras. 83 to 87.

[6] Mr. Purcaru was ordered to pay over $83,000 to the respondent in the fraudulent conveyance action. Purcaru v Seliverstova, 2015 ONSC 7515,

[7] In this proceeding, started just months after the end of the fraudulent conveyance proceedings, Mr. Purcaru seeks, for a third time, to avoid the order of Paisley J. He seeks to terminate or vary his support obligations and he seeks access to teenage children. It seems to me that on its face this application may be an abuse of process at least until Mr. Purcaru has paid all outstanding costs orders against him and paid all outstanding arrears of support. In addition, while parties are entitled generally to bring motions to change a final order in family law proceedings, it appears to me that it may be an abuse of process to do so in this case where the parties have just been through over a decade of litigation in which the moving party has been repeatedly found to have abused the processes of the court.

[8] Mr. Purcaru ought to be provided with a opportunity to make brief written submissions under Rule 2.1.01(3) as to why his application should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1).

[9] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar therefore, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the application;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the plaintiff’s application is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43[^1];

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this application excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the applicant and on the defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: February 10, 2016

[^1]: See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100 at para.