Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-16-544461 Date: 2016-05-31 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Between:
Re: Richard Henry Ochnik, Plaintiff -And- Claudia Irma Belusa, a.k.a. Claudia Irma Ochnik, and Ontario Legal Aid, Defendants
Before: F.L. Myers J.
Read: May 30, 2016
Endorsement
Endorsement
1By endorsement dated March 15, 2016, reported at 2016 ONSC 1860, I directed the registrar to send a notice in Form 2.1A to the plaintiff to inform him that the court is considering dismissing this action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 on the basis that it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. In the prior endorsement, I noted that, “[o]n its face, this action appears to be a collateral attack on the judgment of G.A. Campbell, J. dated June 11, 2014.”
2The plaintiff responded by providing a binder of material. In a Notice of Motion that appears to be the outline of his responding submissions, the plaintiff complains that the defendant Belusa is stalling and has no defence. As to Legal Aid, he claims it inflated its fees charged to Ms. Belusa in their family law proceeding, for which the plaintiff was held responsible by Justice Campbell.
3The plaintiff has also submitted an affidavit although no evidence was sought or is admissible under Rule 2.1. Scaduto v The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at paras. 10 to 12. In his affidavit, the plaintiff makes several responses to evidence provided by Ms. Belusa in the family law proceedings. He also complains about Ms. Belusa’s handling of a family trust. However, in his statement of claim, he admits that he is neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of the trust. His concerns have to do with whether proper disclosure was made in the family proceedings as a result of the irregularities that he has discovered.
Analysis
4All of the plaintiff’s claims are the subject of Justice Campbell’s order referred to above. His relief, if any, is in that proceeding. It is an abuse of process to commence new proceedings to roll forward unsuccessful claims that have already been finally determined in other proceedings. Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497, 37 C.L.R. (4th) 7.
Disposition
5The action is dismissed. Defendants are entitled to its costs, if demanded, to be paid by the plaintiff forthwith after assessment.
6The registrar is directed to send this endorsement to the plaintiff and to counsel for the defendants by emails if it has their email addresses. I dispense with any requirement that the plaintiff approve the formal order as to form and content. The registrar shall serve the formal order on the plaintiff in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
F.L. Myers J.
Date: May 31, 2016