Court File and Parties

Citation: Mayo v. Menard, 2016 ONSC 3298 Court File No.: 4117/11 Date: 2016-05-18 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Marlene Mayo, Plaintiff And: Daniel Menard, Defendant

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: Terrence H. Hill for Defendant Plaintiff in person

Heard: May 18, 2011 at Welland

Endorsement

[1] The plaintiff is suing for injury occasioned in a car accident. The defendant moves to dismiss the action on account of the plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions on examination for discovery.

[2] The plaintiff’s minor son also sued, the plaintiff acting as his litigation guardian. That action was stayed after intervention by the Children’s Lawyer. I do not know anything more about that proceeding.

[3] On March 9, 2016 the plaintiff attended for examination for discovery. The transcript of that session shows that it was entirely unproductive. The plaintiff gave answers that were unresponsive and argumentative. She ended up being asked to leave by the official examiner’s staff because she was disrupting other examinations by shouting at examining counsel.

[4] The obvious remedy would be to order the plaintiff to re-attend and pay costs. But that remedy would be futile in the circumstances. Her conduct at the examination’ consistent with her appearance before me, makes it obvious that her conduct will not change. I must say that the plaintiff did not shout in court, but her submissions were as incoherent as her aborted deposition. Even a layman can tell that there is a serious psychological or psychiatric issue with features of paranoia that is preventing the plaintiff from focusing on the plain issues. She wants or needs to rant instead about the conspiracy against her that involves not only this car accident, but her dismissal by an unrelated employer.

[5] The defendant should not have to conduct his defence on the terms that would be required by this persistent abusive conduct. At the same time I am hesitant to deprive the plaintiff, who is obviously a person under disability, of any access to justice. Instead I make the following order:

a. The action is stayed. If the plaintiff within six months, represented by a litigation guardian, makes a motion on notice the stay may be lifted on such terms as a judge thinks just. Otherwise the stay will be permanent. b. Prejudgment interest is stayed from March 9, 2016. c. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant’s costs thrown away and costs of this motion, fixed at $5,000, within 31 days.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2016-05-18