CITATION: Chisholm v. Children’s Aid Society, 2016 ONSC 3592
COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-549368
DATE: 20160531

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sonia Chisholm, Plaintiff

-and-

Children’s Aid Society, Defendant

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: May 30, 2016

Endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of the York Region Children’s Aid Society under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] In her statement of claim, the plaintiff sees $50 million in general damages, $15 million in special damages, interest, and costs. The statement of claim is inelegantly drafted. The causes of action are not clearly stated. The characters referred to are never clearly defined so it is difficult for someone new to the story to follow the narrative. It nevertheless seems apparent that the plaintiff is making complaints as to the manner in which the defendant interacted with her and others in aborted proceedings.

[3] Children’s Aid Societies are not automatically immune from lawsuits by parents. A.D. v. T.G., 2013 ONSC 958. It is not apparent to me on the face of the statement of claim that this claim is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. While the plaintiff is obviously an upset parent, there is no basis apparent on the face of the claim to determine that the plaintiff cannot possibly succeed in a properly pleaded action or that she is likely to proceed in a vexatious manner. I make no finding as to whether the statement of claim makes out a cognizable cause of action or ought to be struck out on drafting grounds. It does not appear to me however to be one to which Rule 2.1 ought to apply.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: May 31, 2016