Goralczyk v. The Beer Store, 2016 ONSC 1699

CITATION: Goralczyk v. The Beer Store, 2016 ONSC 1699

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-543756

DATE: 20160309

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Anna-Marie Goralczyk, Plaintiff

-and-

The Beer Store, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) local 12R24 union; CFRA Ontario; Canada’s National Brewers; The City of Toronto (Office of the Mayor); Granite Claims Solutions Toronto (Downtown), ClaimsPro; Premier of Ontario; the Attorney General of Ontario; Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Corporate Office, Mary Jocelyn Aviado, Danilo Aviado, Elizabeth Bowels [sic] Lyon, Pope Bergoglio, Jim Makris, William Blair, Children’s Aid Society aka Valoris, Annie Ivy-Lea O’Neill aka. Annie Ivy-Lee Aviado; Terry-Lynn Benoit, Helen Fournier; Alaine Hupe Huppe; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto; Gordon Pon; MaryAnn Bechthold, Martine Edwards; Ms. Gallant; Gary O’Neill; Lillian O’Neill, Christine Goralczyk Bennett, Catherine Goralczyk,Addesso Fenton, James Joseph Goralczyk, Rick Siwek; Jaclyn Mitruk Siwek; Allison Siwek White, Jillian Siwek Jackson; Royal LePage Real Estate; Allan Jones; Kathy Gross, Allan Organization; Joe Mizzi; Fiona Lou Mizzi; Enzo Mizzi Lydia Lazaro Mizzi; Carman Mizzi, Phil Mizzi; The Mizzi Organization aka Alonzi; North 44 Management; Sheldrake Management, Sylvia Sammut Kanary, Tammy Sandra Conway Rose, George Ohrling; Kathleen Thornton, Judge Helen Pierce; Judge Jean L. MacFarland, Judge Herman Jan Wilton Siegel, Judge Goodman, Janet McDaniel, Deborah Guild, St. Michael’s Hospital, Dr. Melissa Chacko, Dr. Quack, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, Central Neighborhood House, Christian Resource Center aka 40 Oak Center, Good Shepherd Ministries, 111 Wellesley St. Public Service Office, Toronto Public Library, Bonnie Gryce, Blair Leslie Botsford, Angela O’Neill, Jody Wilson, Jonathan Ptak, Kirk Baert, Mike Bryant, Chris Bentley, Madeleine Meilleur, Tina Earl, Karen Shaw, Anthea Cheung, Victorias Yankou, Stephen Tsoi, Terri-Lynn Benoit, Patricia Kelly, George Bell, David Lynch, Elizabeth Forestell, Gita Dessner, Anica Raskovic, Claire Barcik, Kathleen Adams Warren Kaus, Irene Ryner, Pam Gawn, Tran Vu, Raymond Mallozzi, Violet Halladay, Christine, Swearing, Norm Kelly, Rob Ford, David Miller, John Tory, Judge Gloria Klowak, Judge Robert Armstrong, Judge John Hamilton, Judge Richard Schneider, Judge Bruno Cavio, Judge John Ritchie, Jeff Newton, Mike Tallis, Rob Mather, Jamie Rillett, Ted Moroz, Andrea Randolph, Doug Moffet et al. Deborah Goralczyk Walker Smith and Lawrence Goralczyk, Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

HEARD: March 9, 2016

endorsement

[1] By Endorsement dated February 8, 2016, reported at 2016 ONSC 993, I directed the registrar to send notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A indicating that the court was considering dismissing her action for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face. The moving defendants had advised the plaintiff of their intention to seek a determination under Rule 2.1. In response, or in anticipation of the court’s process, the plaintiff sent a letter to the court seeking the opportunity to make submissions and to raise a constitutional issue. At para. 8 of the prior endorsement, I ruled:

I agree that the plaintiff should have the opportunity to make arguments under Rule 2.1.01(3)(2). The plaintiff will therefore be provided with notice that she may deliver up to ten pages of written submissions within 15 days explaining why the action should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1).

[2] The plaintiff received the Form 2.1A notice on February 19, 2016. The plaintiff has since delivered a letter dated February 22, 2016 (by fax sent February 24, 2016). makes a number of allegations that the Attorney General for Ontario and the court are colluding to commit murder or human trafficking of her daughter among other things. The plaintiff asserts that as result of this collusion, the court has a conflict of interest.

[3] In addition, the plaintiff asks for more time and a higher page limit in order to respond to the Form 2.1A notice. In Scaduto v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, the Court of Appeal held:

[11] The focus under r. 2.1 is on the pleadings and any submissions of the parties made pursuant to the rule. The role of the motion judge is to determine whether on its face, and in light of any submissions, the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Rule 2.1.01(3) makes this clear when it states that an order “shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any”, filed in accordance with the procedure outlined therein.

[12] Rule 2.1 is designed to permit the court to dismiss frivolous or vexatious proceedings in a summary manner. Resort to evidence defeats the purpose of the rule and leads to the danger that the r. 2.1 process will itself 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”: Gao No. 1, at para. 8.

[4] The Court of Appeal also noted in para. 8 of Scaduto that “the use of the rule should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process.” In my view, ten (10) pages of typing with the font and margin limits set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure is more than enough space to enable a plaintiff to make submissions as to whether her action is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on the face of the pleading. Greater length would defeat the purpose of the rule.

[5] As the plaintiff’s request did not reach me prior to the 15 day period for filing of her submissions having expired (through no fault of hers), it strikes me as appropriate to provide the plaintiff with a further time in which to file her submissions. The deadline for the filing of the plaintiff’s submissions is extended to 4:00 p.m. on March 31, 2016.

[6] I will deal with the plaintiff’s allegations, if necessary, after receiving the plaintiff’s submissions.

[7] This endorsement is to be sent to the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by mail and by one of email or fax if the plaintiff provided either addressor number to the court.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: March 9, 2016