Prince v. TD Canada Trust Bank, 2016 ONSC 6449

CITATION: Prince v. TD Canada Trust Bank, 2016 ONSC 6449

COURT FILE NO.: 14-516547

DATE: 2016-10-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Igbinedion Odion Prince, Plaintiff -and- TD Canada Trust Bank (William Kitchener Branch) et al., Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: October 14, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This matter was referred to the court by the registrar under Rule 2.1.01(7) upon the request of counsel for the defendants under Rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] In his statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges that he was charged with a criminal offence, subjected to bail, convicted, sentenced to house arrest, only to be exonerated on appeal and re-trial, all due to the acts of the defendants. The plaintiff also alleges that, along the way, the defendants breached the terms of his banking contract and committed a number of torts against him for which he seeks damages.

[3] The plaintiff is representing himself. There are several areas in which his statement of claim may be technically deficient. However, if his basic allegation is true, then it does not appear to be either frivolous or vexatious for the plaintiff to claim damages. Moreover, there is nothing on the face of the pleading that provides a basis to suggest that the plaintiff might misuse a motion process in a vexatious or abusive manner were a regular motion to be brought. Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[4] Accordingly, I decline to direct the registrar to send a notice under Rule 2.1 to the plaintiff. This ruling is entirely without prejudice to the defendants’ right to bring any motions that they may find advisable under Rules 20, 21 or 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194.

[5] In light of cases such as Conway v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 72, and Baradaran v. Alexanian, 2016 ONCA 533, one might consider whether pleadings motions under Rule 21 or 25.11 have much remaining utility even in cases which appear to be frivolous and vexatious on their faces. Rather, the Court of Appeal has provided fairly clear guidance that, especially where self-represented parties are involved, motions for summary judgment that give plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard on the merits, are procedurally more prudent and appropriate. See for example, Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566.

[6] Rule 2.1 applies only in the clearest of cases in which the lack of merit in the claim is apparent on the face of the pleadings and where there is a superadded basis to be concerned about abuse of the court’s processes. Rule 20, by contrast, applies to all actions. But not all summary judgment motions need be lengthy, expensive affairs. Rather, in an appropriate case, a brief affidavit explaining the circumstances may be more than sufficient to ensure that the plaintiff is provided with a fair opportunity to make his or her accusations, face the opposition, and be heard by a Master or a Judge. If a case is truly frivolous or just lacking in merit, it can be dealt with summarily under Rule 20 with little process. If procedural issues arise, a case conference under Rule 50.13 is available in Civil Practice Court at which directions can readily be made to maintain proportionality. See also: Rule 1.05 and Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para. 70. Although no evidence is admissible on a motion under Rule 21.01(1) without leave, it is quite common for motions under that Rule to be accompanied by motions under Rule 21.01(3)(d) and/or Rule 25.10 with affidavit evidence filed. Therefore, there is little change in process or cost required in order to enhance the fairness of the process for adjudicating claims with significant pleadings frailties by using Rule 20 in appropriate cases as an alternative, summary model of adjudication on the merits as contemplated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak at para. 45.

F.L. Myers, J.

Date: October 14, 2016