Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-546254 DATE: 20160518 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sherley Leandre, Abdul Razaq Raji, Plaintiffs

• and -

Children’s Aid Society of London (CASL), Directrice de la Protection de la Jeunesse, Longueuil, Downtown Legal Services (DLS) – University of Toronto, Carolyn J. Jones, Defendants

BEFORE: J.F. Diamond J.

READ: May 16, 2016

Endorsement

[1] This action was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) submitted by the lawyers for the defendant Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex incorrectly named in the style of cause as Children’s Aid Society of London (CASL).

[2] In accordance with my Endorsement dated April 13, 2016 and reported at 2016 ONSC 2472, this proceeding was stayed pending the receipt of a written response from the plaintiffs to address the Court contemplating the dismissal of this proceeding.

[3] I have now had an opportunity to review the written response from the plaintiff, which was oddly dated April 5, 2016 (ie. before the release of my initial Endorsement) but not received until many weeks later.

[4] In my initial Endorsement, I indicated to the plaintiffs that their pleading, rooted in a self-described “malicious campaign involving child welfare proceedings” on the part of the defendants, appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process as, inter alia, (a) the claims appeared identical to those discussed by Justice Beaudoin in Raji v. Downtown Legal Services 2015 ONSC 5770, and (b) some of the defendants are protected in law from civil lawsuits.

[5] The plaintiffs’ written response describes the written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) as “illegitimate”, relies upon alleged acts and/or omissions on the part of some of the defendants in the previous, underlying legal proceeding (which underscores the abuse of process), and alleges that the request ought to be dismissed due to the defendants’ “criminal activities and operations”.

[6] In addition, the plaintiff Sherley Leandre accuses the defendants of adding her husband as a party to this proceeding. I note that her husband appears to be listed as a plaintiff from the very issuance of the Statement of Claim.

[7] In my view, a review of the Statement of Claim discloses that it is obvious that this proceeding cannot succeed, and consequently it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process as defined in Gao v. WSIB Ontario 2015 ONSC 6497.

[8] This action is therefore dismissed. I dispense with any requirement to obtain the plaintiffs’ approval as to the form and content of the draft order.

[9] The Registrar shall send a copy of this endorsement to the plaintiffs by regular mail to their address for service on the Statement of Claim. The defendants shall serve a copy of the formal order on the plaintiffs by regular mail at the same address.

Diamond J. Released: May 18, 2016