Court File and Parties

CITATION: Goralczyk v. The Beer Store, 2016 ONSC 3057

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-543756

DATE: 20160509

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, Lawrence Goralczyk.

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

HEARD: May 9, 2016

Endorsement

[1] This action was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7).

[2] By endorsement dated April 4, 2016, reported at 2016 ONSC 2265, I dismissed this action against all of the defendants other than The Beer Store and the City of Toronto. I also struck out the statement of claim and allowed the plaintiff to deliver a fresh statement of claim against the two remaining defendants in relation to a slip and fall accident that the plaintiff says occurred in January, 2014.

[3] The plaintiff has now delivered an 83 page fresh statement of claim purportedly against the two remaining defendants. However she has also named 25 others including the Mayor of Toronto, two former Mayors, and the Premier of Ontario as “retroactive collaborate personnel” of the two named defendants.

[4] The plaintiff has not obtained an order amending the title of proceeding, so I use the existing title above. Moreover, it appears from para. 45 of the fresh statement of claim that the plaintiff is intent upon continuing her original action against all of the defendants despite the dismissal of her claims against all but two of them.

[5] Rather than focusing on her slip and fall accident, the plaintiff’s fresh statement of claim continues to allege a criminal conspiracy among a large number of people whom she blames for the fact that her daughter was taken from her in child protection proceedings many years ago. Her allegations claim that the defendants, and those whom she holds responsible for them, engage in a criminal conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, and pedophilia, among other things. I am also the subject of allegations by the plaintiff in light of my prior order.

[6] While there are references to the slip and fall at various points in the fresh statement of claim, it too is subsumed in the ongoing conspiracy allegations – see para. 39 for example.

[7] It appears on the face of the fresh statement of claim that the plaintiff’s remaining action may be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497. In my prior endorsement, I recognized that there could be a valid cause of action in relation to a slip and fall accident, the plaintiff so ties the slip and fall to her conspiracy allegations as to raise an issue as to how the defendants could be expected to respond to the slip and fall without the proceeding becoming enmeshed in the conspiracy allegations that have already been found to be improper. For example, in para. 81 of the fresh statement of claim, the plaintiff asserts that her injuries healed slowly because the medical industry is swearing allegiance to the criminal conspiracy.

[8] The court provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to revise her claim to limit her allegations to the slip and fall accident despite finding that the plaintiff’s initial claim raised concerns that she may carry on the litigation in a vexatious manner that justified the application of Rule 2.1. Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733. My endorsement anticipated that the plaintiff would limit her claims appropriately although pleadings motions might still remain available to the two remaining defendants in the ordinary course. The plaintiff appears to have declined the opportunity to limit her claims to the slip and fall accident. The plaintiff should therefore be provided with an opportunity to make submissions as to why the claims set out in the fresh statement of claim should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

[9] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, 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 action;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the plaintiff’s action 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 action 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 plaintiff and counsel for the defendants The Beer Store and the City of Toronto by fax or email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: May 9, 2016

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