Court File and Parties

CITATION: Rallis v. Scarborough Hospital, 2016 ONSC 2263

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-535177

DATE: 20160404

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Rallis, plaintiff

– and –

Scarborough Hospital and Dr. Roger Dacre, defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: April 4, 2016

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated March 7, 2016, reported at 2016 ONSC 1763, 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 his action should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.

[2] In two paragraphs starting about one-third down the page on page two of his submissions, Mr. Rallis sets out a perfectly intelligible account of a claim for medical malpractice. He does not say whether he is the executor of his wife’s estate nor does he acknowledge the limitations of a wrongful death claim. But those issues do not make the claim one that runs afoul of Rule 2.1. The problem identified in my prior endorsement is that the statement of claim is approximately 400 pages long and it is impossible to understand as a factual story that forms the basis of a proper pleading of a cause of action at law.

[3] Rather than stopping at page two or the top of page three of his submission after setting out his claims succinctly and well, the plaintiff spends the next several pages on ad hominem attacks on me and the grounds relied upon in my endorsement. What started as a perfectly acceptable explanation quickly became a vexatious rant.

[4] Rule 25.06(1) provides that pleadings, including statements of claim, shall consist of “a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.” It was not mocking to note that the claim was 400 pages long. Rather it was a recognition that the pleading is not at all a concise statement of the material facts relied upon by the plaintiff. The claim is so prolix that there is no fair basis upon which to require a defendant to respond to it. There is no way to separate and plead to material facts as opposed to the hundreds of pages of evidence and ranting.

[5] I have little doubt that the plaintiff’s approach to this point displays many of the concerns for which Rule 2.1 is an appropriate vehicle. But as there is a clear cause of action available to the plaintiff, the proper remedy is not to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1. Rather, I strike out the statement of claim under Rule 25.06(1), Rule 25.11, and as an abuse of process in accordance with the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The plaintiff is to be given one chance to establish that he can carry a lawsuit within the Rules of Civil Procedure. If legal advice is not to his liking, he should at least consult a textbook that describes the rules of pleading such as Bullen & Leake & Jacob's Canadian Precedents of Pleadings, (Second Edition) (Carswell, 2013).

[6] The plaintiff is to serve and file a fresh as amended statement of claim within 60 days. If he fails to do so, the defendants may move to dismiss the claim.

[7] The plaintiff shall pay the defendants their assessable costs, if any, forthwith after assessment.

[8] The court dispenses with any requirement for the plaintiff to approve the form or content of the formal order.

[9] 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