Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Irmya, Hilton P. Mijovick in trust, Community Counts Foundation/David Walsh in trust Plaintiffs

- and -

Hilton P. Mijovick, Geoff Pollock & Associates, Nisha Subba, Barristor [sic] & Solicitor, Ian Mackay Thompson, Estate Trustee for Madeline Margaret Field Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: May 31, 2016

Endorsement

[1] This motion and action were referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of counsel for the defendants Geoff Pollock & Associates and Nisha Subba pursuant to rules 2.1.01(6) and 2.1.02(1).

[2] The plaintiff, Mr. Irmya, issued a Notice of Action on February 29, 2016. In it, he claims: $2.2 million for conversion of his assets/benefit, an order requiring the defendants personally and their companies to produce all of their financial records and related material pertaining to this matter, in the alternative damages for unjust enrichment of $1.555 million, punitive damages of $1.555 million, an order to amend his claim to add additional parties of concern, an order to amend this claim to add additional documents and supporting evidence, an order to bring witnesses if required from all the authoritative government agencies such the CRA, Ministry of Finance, etc., and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

[3] The one paragraph body of the Notice of Action provides:

This action arises out of a real estate transaction and benefit between the Plaintiffs and the third party whereas the Defendants and their companies etc. were negligent to protect the Plaintiff’s assets/benefits/businesses/reputation, and proceeded to commit conspiracy and fraud.

[4] The plaintiff has not filed his statement of claim although the 30 days provided for him to do so under rule 14.03(3) have passed.

[5] Instead, the plaintiff has delivered a motion record including a notice of motion for a motion returnable June 15, 2016 before a Master or a judge. The motion seeks a large number of orders including: that Mr. Irmya be allowed to represent the plaintiff trusts (whom he refers to as “trust companies”) until counsel is retained; that Mr. Irmya has a right to a legal representative and a fair trial under the human rights law, the Constitution of Canada, and the Law Society of Upper Canada; that he be allowed to establish a company to refinance 55 Prince Arthur Ave, Unit TH65, in Toronto (the “Unit”); that the defendants provide all communication, verbally and in writing, with all parties, including friends and associates and legal counsel; that the defendant Thompson provide a detailed explanation of certain charges shown on title to the Unit; that if the Unit has been sold, Mr. Thompson be required pay the proceeds into court; and that the defendants’ law firm provide detailed evidence of Hilton Mijovick being defrauded by his deceased wife Madeline Margaret Field with evidence of any cancelled cheque(s) payable to Mr. Evgueni Todorov from Hilton Mijovick or his deceased wife.

[6] The motion record contains an affidavit of the Mr. Irmya that speaks of and exhibits many picture and tributes showing that Mr. Irmya communicates with many politicians and important public figures about issues of public importance. He then exhibits emails purportedly indicating that Mr. Mijovick - who is both a named plaintiff and defendant – authorized Mr. Irmya to be involved with Mr. Mijovick’s efforts to refinance the Unit. There are emails purportedly from Mr. Mijovick authorizing Mr. Irmya to “bring business solutions” to Mr. Mijovick’s assets. Mr. Mijovick referred to Mr. Irmya as “Brother Daniel” and communicated with him at an email address peaceandlove3318@***.com. The exhibits also show that recently, Mr. Mijovick retained counsel, Ms. Subba of Geoff Pollock & Associates. Ms. Subba demanded that Mr. Irmya cease and desist from communicating further with Mr. Mijovick and characterized Mr. Irmya’s proposed involvement as “grossly exploitive” and “bordering on larceny.” Settlement discussions then ensued in which Mr. Mijovick’s lawyer offered Mr. Irmya $500 and then $750 in return for a release. Mr. Irmya also exhibits a number of pleadings from unrelated litigation matters to try to smear Mr. Mijovick.

[7] It is possible to guess that the plaintiff is claiming that he is entitled to compensation for some efforts that he made to try to help Mr. Mijovick refinance his condominium unit. But that is a guess.

[8] At this stage the merits are not before me. I am requested to consider whether the plaintiff’s motion is an abuse of process in the absence of a statement of claim. In addition, I am requested to consider if the entire action is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face so that it should be dismissed under Rule 2.1.

[9] In my view, Mr Irmya ought to be called upon to deliver brief submissions to explain why his motion and the entire action ought to be allowed to proceed. Mr. Irmya has not delivered a statement of claim setting out recognized causes of action as required by Rules 14.03(1) and (3). His time for doing so has expired so that he now needs leave to deliver a statement of claim. The motion record appears on its face to seek relief that is either plainly not available to a plaintiff or is, at best, premature. Moreover, the story contained in Mr. Irmya’s own motion record appears to be vexatious on its face.

[10] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 and Rule 2.1.02 dismissing Mr. Irmya’s motion and possibly the full action;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 the action, including the motion, are stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43 [1];

c. If the plaintiff has booked an appointment for a motion returnable on June 15, 2016 before a Master or a judge, the appointment is cancelled and the time is to be released pending the outcome of this review. The motion may be re-booked if the stay is lifted and the action is allowed to proceed once the review under Rule 2.1 is completed;

d. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

e. In addition to the service by mail required by rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the Mr. Irmya and counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J. Date: May 31, 2016

[1] See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100 at para.