Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 16-68599 Date: 20160923 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Mr. Peter Sagos, Plaintiff And: Michael Edelson, Defendant

Before: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Heard: By requisition

Endorsement

[1] By written requisition dated July 6, 2016, the Defendant requested an order under sub-rule 2.1.01(1) dismissing this action as the Statement of Claim appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

[2] By endorsement dated July y, 2016, I concluded that resort to Rule 2.1 was appropriate and I directed the Registrar to give the Plaintiff notice in form 2.1 A that I was considering making an order dismissing the action. The Plaintiff delivered written submissions in accordance with rule 2.1 (3.2). I then directed the Registrar to provide a copy of those submissions to the Defendant in accordance with rule 2.1 (3.4). No submissions were received from the Defendant.

[3] The Plaintiff apparently filed additional materials beyond what is provided for in Rule 2.1.01(3).3. I have not inspected those documents. In considering the dismissal of a claim pursuant to Rule 2.1, the Court is limited to a review of the pleading on its face and this should not rely on any extraneous documents or submissions other than those that are specifically provided for in the Rule.

[4] I have reviewed the Written Statement of the Plaintiff to which he attached copies of his correspondence with the Defendant as well as e-mail exchanges. In my earlier Endorsement, I noted the Statement of Claim in this matter and it consists of one short paragraph. No recognizable cause of action was apparent from my review of the pleading. There is an allegation that the Defendant failed to provide him with disclosure from the Bermuda Police Service. There is no pleading that the Defendant owed a duty to provide this disclosure, if the Defendant breached that duty and how the Plaintiff may have suffered a loss as a result of any alleged breach.

[5] From the additional information, I can infer that the Defendant, a well-known Ottawa criminal defence lawyer, may have been retained by the Plaintiff in relation to criminal proceedings of some kind in Bermuda where the Plaintiff ultimately pleaded guilty. The Plaintiff continues to complain that the Defendant did not provide him with disclosure proving his innocence.

[6] There is no actual pleading that the Defendant was retained to represent the Plaintiff in the proceedings in Bermuda and there is no pleading with respect to the nature of that retainer. It remains unclear what disclosure the Plaintiff is referring to; how the Defendant came into possession of it here in Canada, what duty the Defendant had to provide that disclosure, and how that failure resulted in a compensable loss to the Plaintiff.

[7] A copy of a letter addressed to the Plaintiff from Mr. Edelson, and dated April 29, 2013 is attached to the Plaintiff’s Written Statement is helpful and it says this:

Please find enclosed the various materials from your closed file, as per your request. I have included essentially everything from your fall except for the disclosure materials provided to us by your Bermuda counsel. As licensees of the Law Society of Upper Canada, we are bound by Rules of Professional Conduct and Bylaws, to maintain possession and control of the disclosure. I have written to your Bermuda counsel to determine if there are similar rules with respect to disclosure from their jurisdiction. If there are similar rules with respect to Bermuda disclosure, I must abide by those rules and keep possession of the disclosure. You can however attend our office to review the disclosure. If your Bermuda counsel advises that there are no such rules, I will advise you of same and you may obtain a copy of the disclosure. (Emphasis added)

[8] There continues to be no apparent cause of action pleaded against Mr. Edelson. The Statement of Claim was issued on May 16, 2016, more than 2 years after the letter that the Plaintiff relies on. It appears that this claim may be barred by operation of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B.

[9] I accordingly dismiss this action as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the Court. I further direct the Registrar to provide a copy of this Endorsement by mail to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

Released: September 23, 2016 Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin