Court File and Parties

CITATION: Lin v. ICBC Vancouver Head Office, 2016 ONSC 2262

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-546230

DATE: 20160404

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin, plaintiff

– and –

ICBC Vancouver Head Office, Employment Standards branch Lower Mainland Region, BC, Ombudsman BC, Human Right BC, Amazing Grace Christian Fellowship, Xiaoan Zhou, Guang Rong, And Li Hai, Grace Point Church, Pro Bono Law Ontario, Employment Insurance Commission, and Lui Lun, defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: April 4, 2016

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated March 10, 2016 I stayed this action and directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A. The plaintiff has responded with written submissions as to why her action should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.

[2] The statement of claim raises the same matters that were previously the subject of Rule 2.1 rulings. See: Lin v William Rock et al., 2015 ONSC 2421, Lin v. Griether et al., 2015 ONSC 1541. The plaintiff has expanded her parties and the relief sought to add the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the British Columbia Ombudsperson, Pro Bono Law Ontario, and others. The statement of claim pleads no recognizable basis to sue any of the defendants. In her written submissions, the plaintiff omits most of her prior story regarding dealings with a Mr. Griether. Instead she raises discrete issues of harassment by the defendants. She has a concern with how ICBC handled a car accident claim in 2008. She has a complaint about how Employment Standards BC dealt with a complaint in 2009. She has a complaint about how the BC Ombudsperson dealt with her complaints to the Ombudsperson about both of the forgoing matters. She raises complaints about harassment in various churches by church based English teachers and certain church goers. She has a complaint regarding the failure of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to deal with an unspecified complaint that she made to it. She complains that she was kept waiting and was not helped by Pro Bono Law Ontario. She complains about the rejection of her claim for Employment Insurance benefits and the dismissal of her appeal by the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. Finally she complains that a landlord opened her mail and evicted her. Overall she says that she is suing for breach of the BC Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She also expresses concern that the court has dismissed her cases previously.

[3] In all, it is apparent on the face of the Statement of Claim and in Ms. Lin’s submissions that she has no legal basis to sue any of the defendants in this court. I am sorry that Ms. Lin feels that she is being repeatedly harassed and that she cannot find a remedy that satisfies her. But there is no basis to sue government bodies that have made decisions under applicable regulatory regimes or private individuals for discrete matters that do not individually amount to a cause of action at private law. Neither does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the BC Human Rights Code provide a free standing cause of action against governments and private individuals for the harassment claimed.

[4] Ms. Lin’s repeated attempts to sue in this court are abusive and vexatious. Accordingly, this is an appropriate case for the use of the Rule 2.1 process. On its face the statement of claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

[5] Therefore, this action is dismissed. The plaintiff shall pay the defendants their assessable costs, if any, forthwith after assessment.

[6] The court dispenses with any requirement for the plaintiff to approve the form or content of the formal order dismissing the action without costs.

[7] In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to send a copy of this endorsement to the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses

F.L. Myers J.

Date: April 4, 2016