CITATION: Thompson v. WJ Holdings Limited, 2016 ONSC 3591 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-550961 DATE: 20160531
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
MARK THOMPSON Applicant
-AND-
WJ HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
READ: May 31, 2016
Endorsement
[1] By endorsement dated April 22, 2016, reported at 2016 ONSC 2704, the court directed the registrar to send a notice in Form 2.1A to inform the plaintiff that the court is considering dismissing this application because it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. In response, the plaintiff has delivered written submissions.
[2] In the prior endorsement, I noted that,
[5] The applicant seeks an order rescinding orders made by other judges of this court in a different proceeding between these parties. He also seeks sanctions against the respondent for failing to make proper disclosure in the other proceeding.
[6] It is an abuse of process to bring a second lawsuit to try to litigate a second time on issues between the parties that have already been resolved by the court. Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 5.
[3] In his submissions, the applicant challenges the respondent’s entitlement to participate in this application because it has not yet delivered a notice of appearance. He argues that in their other proceeding the respondent had requested an order under Rule 37.16 restricting him from bringing further motions without leave of the court being obtained in advance. As such, he argues that it is inequitable for the respondent to now seek to dismiss this proceeding. I think the applicant means that if he is prohibited from bringing motions in the other proceeding, he believes that he needs to bring a new proceeding in order to have his complaints heard.
[4] The applicant seems to be missing the point. If he is not allowed to bring motions in the other proceeding under Rule 37.16, presumably that has to do with his behaviour in that proceeding. Rule 37.16 is typically invoked to prevent a party from bringing motions that have no merit or which are otherwise abusive. The purpose of prohibiting a party from bringing motions without leave is to limit a party’s ability to inflict the cost and inconvenience of motion practice on the party opposite and on the court unless a judge has determined that the motion has sufficient merit to justify allowing it to be brought. I do not know what orders have made in the other proceeding or what, if any, determinations have been made regarding the applicant and his participation in that proceeding. However, if a judicial officer has determined that the applicant should not be allowed to bring motions in another proceeding without leave first being obtained, it is a flagrant abuse of process to bring a new application to try to get around the leave requirement. If the applicant wants to bring a motion and the motion has some merit, he should seek leave in his other proceeding. If he wants to bring a meritless motion, he is not entitled to do that in any proceeding.
[5] The applicant has appended to his submissions excerpts from the federal and provincial human rights laws that outlaw discrimination on prohibited grounds. He has not made any argument as to how those sections might be relevant to this proceeding. He has also attached a brief summary of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1959] SCR 121. He relies on that case to support the propositions that government’s discretion must be exercised in accordance with its purpose and in good faith. There is no quarrel with those propositions of law. However, they do not form a basis to challenge final judicial rulings in a new application.
[6] If the applicant is unhappy with rulings made in other proceedings, his remedy lay in those proceedings whether by appeal or otherwise. It is an abuse of process to try to re-litigate those issues in a new application.
[7] The application is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to its costs, if demanded, to be paid by the applicant forthwith after assessment.
[8] The registrar is directed to send this endorsement to the applicant and to counsel for the respondent by email if it has their email addresses. I dispense with any requirement that the applicant approve the formal order as to form and content. The registrar shall serve the formal order on the applicant in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(5).
F.L. Myers, J.