COURT FILE NOs.: 16-58218 and 16-58219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ELIZABETH DIAS
Plaintiff
- and -
WORKPLACE SAFETY & INSURANCE BOARD/TRIBUNAL
Defendants
B E T W E E N:
ELIZABETH DIAS
Plaintiff
- and -
LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO
Defendant
HEARD: In Writing
The Honourable Justice C.D. Braid
ENDORSEMENT
I. OVERVIEW
1Elizabeth Dias has brought two actions in Hamilton Superior Court. Ms. Dias recently sued similar defendants in Toronto and those actions were dismissed because they were found to be frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process.
2The registrar referred the Hamilton files to me pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7), following receipt of written requests of the lawyers for the defendants. The defendants ask that the Hamilton actions be dismissed because these actions are attempts to re-litigate the Toronto actions and are therefore frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process.
II. ANALYSIS
3The requests from the defendants were forwarded to me with the court files which, at this stage, consist solely of the statements of claim. The letters contained copies of motion materials from the plaintiff, as well as copies of the statements of claim from the Toronto actions and the decisions of Myers J. in those cases. The letters were copied to the plaintiff.
4Ms. Dias commenced two actions in the Toronto Superior Court of Justice in 2015. In Toronto file CV-15-542558, she sued the WSIB and WSAIT; and in Toronto file CV-15-542560, she sued the LCBO. It appears that the subject matter of the Hamilton actions is substantially the same as the actions that were commenced in Toronto. The Toronto actions were dismissed earlier this year by Myers J., pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1).
5Rule 2.1 protects parties (and the administration of justice) from frivolous and vexatious proceedings and those which are an abuse of the process of the court. Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act also grants the court jurisdiction to deal with vexatious proceedings.
6Rule 2.1 allows the court, of its own motion, to quickly review and dismiss actions which are on their face frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. If the court is satisfied that a case may fall under Rule 2.1, the plaintiff will be notified by the registrar that the plaintiff has 15 days in which to make written submissions of no more than 10 pages in length as to why the action should not be dismissed. This process prevents a vexatious litigant from abusing the normal motion process: Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 2015 ONSC 801.
7Any time that proceedings are brought to try to end a vexatious proceeding, the vexatious litigant is provided with a fresh opportunity to conduct that proceeding in a vexatious, expensive, wasteful, and abusive manner. Imposing a quick and limited written process that provides one opportunity to the plaintiff to show why the claim should not be dismissed is an important advance toward meeting the goals of efficiency, affordability, and proportionality in the civil justice system as discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
8In this case, the frivolous, vexatious, and abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleadings. It appears that the plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate other proceedings that have been dismissed.
9I have read the statement of claims advanced in these two actions. The plaintiff does not set out the relief that she is seeking. The statement of claims set out what appears to be a list of grounds for a motion and evidence to be used on the motion. The claims are not brought in any justiciable form.
10The claims make reference to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal Rule 531/12, which was the subject matter of the claim in the Toronto actions. The Hamilton actions appear to be attempts to re-litigate or attack collaterally the decisions in the Toronto actions and/or by the tribunal. If the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the decisions of the judge and/or of the tribunal, the plaintiff’s remedy in each case was to exercise her rights of appeal.
11The plaintiff has served the defendants with motions in the Hamilton actions, returnable on September 1, 2016. In support of those motions, she has provided WSIB with more than 50 pages of documents. It appears that these are the materials that were relied on by the plaintiff in the WSIB tribunal.
12Re-litigating issues is vexatious behaviour that invites scrutiny under Rule 2.1. It is apparent on the face of the statements of claim that these actions may be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process of the court. The actions bear hallmarks of vexatious litigation that make resort to Rule 2.1 appropriate.
III. DISPOSITION
13The court makes the following orders:
i. Pursuant to Sub-rule 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 Sub-rule 2.1.01 dismissing the actions. The notice shall state that the plaintiff has 15 days in which to make written submissions of no more than 10 pages in length as to why the actions should not be dismissed;
ii. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the court, these actions are stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43;
iii. The registrar shall accept no further filings in these actions excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with Sub-rule 2.1.01(3);
iv. If the court staff has already received motions material in these actions, the registrar shall vacate the motions date. No further date shall be scheduled for the hearing of motions in these actions until further order of the court;
v. 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 mail. In addition, the registrar shall serve a copy by email if it has the parties’ email addresses.
Braid J.
Released: August 17, 2016