Court File and Parties

Citation: Wang v. The Regional Municipality of Peel et al., 2016 ONSC 2234 Court File No.: CV-15-523750 Date: 2016-04-08 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Yong Wang, Plaintiff And: The Regional Municipality of Peel and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Defendants

Before: Lederman J.

Counsel: Yong Wang, Plaintiff, in person Christopher Sansom, for the Defendant, The Regional Municipality of Peel Jon Bradbury, for the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Heard: March 24, 2016

Endorsement

NATURE OF MOTIONS

[1] The defendant, The Regional Municipality of Peel (“Peel”) seeks an order striking out the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim and dismissing the plaintiff’s action as against it as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

[2] The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (the “Crown”) seeks a similar order on the basis that the claim against it is a nullity pursuant to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.27, s 7(1), and is frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process and discloses no reasonable cause of action.

PEEL’S MOTION

[3] Part of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim relates to interactions with and decisions made by employees of Ontario Works in the course of administering the plaintiff’s application for benefits under the Ontario Works Act, S.O. 1997, c.25, Sch A.

[4] Peel is the administrator of the Ontario Works Act, in the Regional Municipality of Peel. It makes statutory decisions with respect to, among other things, applications and eligibility for Ontario Works Welfare Benefits, based on the interpretation and application of the Act.

[5] The plaintiff successfully applied to the Ontario Works program in March 2012 and was approved for Ontario Works benefits. In April, 2012 the plaintiff applied to the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sched B, but his application was initially refused. The plaintiff then appealed the ODSP refusal to the Social Benefits Tribunal. It granted his appeal and the plaintiff was provided benefits retroactive to May 1, 2012.

[6] On several occasions, the plaintiff refused to sign certain update forms required to receive his ODSP benefits because he alleged they contained false statements. He also complains that because of the official’s conduct, he was rendered homeless and caused him mental anguish and other sufferings.

[7] If the plaintiff had a dispute or issues with respect to how he was treated by the Ontario Works’ administrators, he had an appeal route to the Social Benefits Tribunal and from there an opportunity to appeal to the Divisional Court on a question of law.

[8] Any complaints that he had with respect to the manner of treatment that he received from officials in respect of processing his Ontario Works or ODSP claims, were to be dealt with in that forum and not by way of action against Peel.

[9] The plaintiff complains about a form that Ontario Works required him to sign in order to obtain his ODSP benefits.

[10] He alleges that the form contained an untruth indicating an “inability to obtain employment”. In the end, he did not sign such a form but it did not deprive him of receiving his ODSP benefits.

[11] In any event, the various torts that are being alleged against Peel are completely devoid of any supporting facts. Bald allegations are made about deliberateness, collusion and motive to cause harm. As stated by Sanderson J. in Asgedom v. Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services), 2014 ONSC 6474 at para. 38:

“a bald plea of malice is insufficient. Broadly based allegations of bad faith, malice, and bias based merely on assumptions or speculation about the motivations underlying the conduct of government officials are insufficient.”

[12] That is the case here and it is plain and obvious that the amended statement of claim does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against Peel.

THE CROWN’S MOTION

[13] As with Peel, the allegations against the Crown seem to have arisen from the plaintiff’s interaction with ODSP program. The allegations against the Crown in the amended statement of claim include the following:

(a) the Crown “committed numerous acts and omissions and made wrongful decisions that caused the sufferings of the plaintiff” (Para. 89);

(b) the Crown “knowingly deceived the plaintiff” (para. 92);

(c) the Crown “infringed on the human rights” of the plaintiff (para. 93);

(d) the Crown helped Peel “to cover up the truth of the fact by threatening the plaintiff” (para. 95)

[14] As stated earlier in these reasons, any complaints about how he was treated in respect of his application for benefits was a matter to be pursued through the regime set up under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, and not by way of action.

[15] Similarly, where a person alleges conduct that offends the Ontario Human Rights Code, a remedy must be sought within the statutory scheme of the Code itself and not by way of action: see King v. Ryerson University, 2015 ONCA 648 at para. 5.

[16] The amended statement of claim also makes allegations with respect to mistreatment that the plaintiff received from hospitals, the police and housing shelters. These allegations do not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Crown.

[17] The amended statement of claim seems to make allegations of negligence, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, malicious and reckless conduct and pleads for punitive damages.

[18] The allegations are all conclusory in nature and there is no pleading of the necessary elements for these causes of action or the underlying material facts in support of such claims against the Crown.

[19] Accordingly, as no reasonable cause of action against the Crown has been disclosed, the amended statement of claim cannot stand as against it.

[20] Having so determined, it is unnecessary to consider the Crown’s argument that the action against it is a nullity by reason of the fact that notice was not given to it pursuant to s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

CONCLUSION

[21] For these reasons, the amended statement of claim is struck out and the action as against both Peel and the Crown is dismissed.

[22] No costs were sought by Peel or the Crown and thus there will be no order as to costs.

Lederman J.

Date: April 8, 2016