Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-557147 DATE: 20160728 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Young Park, plaintiff

– and –

Crossgate Legal Services and Youtaig Joo, defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: July 28, 2016

Endorsement

[1] By order dated March 4, 2913, Morgan J. declared the plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43. In doing so Morgan J. prohibited the plaintiff from commencing any further proceedings in any court in Ontario without first obtaining leave to do so under s. 140(3) of the statute.

[2] The registrar has brought this action to the court’s attention. Apparently, the plaintiff was allowed to issue this new proceeding recently without first obtaining leave. In doing so, the court made an error and the plaintiff violated the order made by Justice Morgan.

[3] Rule 2.1.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the court determines that a person who is subject to a vexatious litigant order has instituted a proceeding without the order having been rescinded or leave granted for the proceeding to be instituted, “the court shall make an order staying or dismissing the proceeding”.

[4] As I wrote in a prior case that this plaintiff also brought in violation of the order made by Justice Morgan, Park v. Short, 2015 ONSC 1292:

[7] Rule 2.1.03(1) is mandatory. I am required to make an order either staying or dismissing the plaintiff’s claim because the order of Morgan J. has not been rescinded and the plaintiff has not obtained leave to sue under subsection 140(3) of the Act. There is no reason to stay the action. The plaintiff has brazenly ignored the injunction ordered by Morgan J.

[5] Although Rule 2.1.03(2) provides that a party may request an order under this subsection, it is not necessary for a party to do so. Rule 2.1.03 does not involve bringing a motion or holding a hearing – even in writing. It does not call for a judicial decision. Rather, it is simply an administrative enforcement of the court’s own processes. Where a plaintiff brings an action without leave while prohibited from doing so by a subsisting order the new action will simply be dismissed. Whether any other consequence flows from the plaintiff’s act is for a court to consider if or when a party may move. Nothing in this endorsement precludes the defendants from seeking any relief to which they may be entitled including costs of this action, either in this proceeding, as enforcement of the order made by Justice Morgan, or otherwise.

[6] This action is therefore dismissed. The court dispenses with any requirement that the plaintiff approve the form or content of the formal order dismissing the action. The registrar is directed to send a copy of this endorsement to the plaintiff and to counsel for the defendants. Pursuant to Rule 2.1.03(3) the registrar is also directed to serve a copy of the formal order dismissing the action by mail on the plaintiff at the address contained in her statement of claim and on counsel to the defendant.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: July 28, 2016