CITATION: Musole v. Buset, 2016 ONSC 4429

COURT FILE NO.: 16-68865

DATE: 201600705

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: BUHENDWA MUSOLE, Plaintiff/ Moving party

AND

BUSET & PARTNERS LLP, Defendants/Responding parties

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

HEARD: By Requisition

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This requisition was referred to me by the Registrar’s Office pursuant to rule 2.1 .01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request of the Defendants. I note that the Plaintiff was copied with that request.

[2] I have reviewed the Statement of Claim in this matter. It is apparent that the Defendants are being sued for having been the law firm that represented Renee Lynn Girard in Family Court proceedings in Thunder Bay, Ontario where she successfully obtained an order for child support from the Plaintiff.

[3] In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff sets out the history of those proceedings. The trial judge concluded that the Plaintiff was the father of the child and rejected his claims of “violation, fraud and pregnancy entrapment.” The Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed that decision on June 13, 2012.

[4] The Plaintiff then appears to have commenced a civil proceeding against Ms. Girard here in Ottawa raising issues of “lies, deception, fraud, entrapment, and extortion.” I conclude from my review of the pleading that Justice Hackland stayed that action as an abuse of process on the basis that the Plaintiff was seeking to re-litigate the child support issues raised in the prior proceedings in Thunder Bay. The Plaintiff’s appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

[5] The Plaintiff now brings this action wherein he seeks damages against the Defendants in the amount of $750,000 and also seeks to have the Defendant law firm banned from practising law in Ontario and Canada at large. He also seeks relief that does not appear to be obtainable in this action; namely:

Relief 1: Publication ban on the names, date of birth, and pictures/images of the child conceived and born from the deceptive fraudulent scheme of the Defendant’s client Renee Lynn Girard.

Relief 2: The Defendants be required to withdraw or recant, in a letter to Justice Linhares De Sousa, their false allegations of me making personal attacks on their client Renee Lynn Girard and her counsel.

[6] As Justice Myers held in Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 at paragraph 14:

… re-litigating issues and adding parties opposite who were involved in the first case to try to do so are recognized signs of vexatious and is that invite scrutiny under rule 2.1.

[7] The Statement of Claim accuses the Defendants of misleading justice, negligence, failure in their duty to the Court and libel. The Plaintiff, having been unsuccessful in overturning court decisions that confirmed his obligation to pay child support for a child that he fathered, now seeks to raise the same issues in a new claim aimed at the mother’s counsel.

[8] It is apparent on the face of the Statement of Claim that this action may be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process of the court and resort to rule 2.1 was appropriate.

[9] I therefore make the following orders:

• Pursuant to sub- rule 2.1 .01(3)(1), the Registrar is directed to give notice to the Plaintiff in Form 2.1 A that the Court is considering making an order under sub- rule 2.1 .01 dismissing the action:

• Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the Plaintiff’s action is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43;

• The Registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the Plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with sub- rule 2.1 .01(3);

• In addition to the service by mail required by sub- rule 2.1 .01(4), the Registrar is to serve a copy of this Endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Date: July 5, 2016

CITATION: Musole v. Buset, 2016 ONSC 4429

COURT FILE NO.: 16-68865

DATE: 20160705

ONTARIO