Clark v. Sports Cafe Champions a.k.a. 1682211 Ontario Inc., 2016 ONSC 7303

CITATION: Clark v. Sports Cafe Champions a.k.a. 1682211 Ontario Inc., 2016 ONSC 7303
COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-554449
DATE: 2016-11-23

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

DAVID CLARK

Plaintiff

-AND-

SPORTS CAFE CHAMPIONS A.K.A. 1682211 ONTARIO INC.

Defendant

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: November 23, 2016

Endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of counsel for the defendant under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The plaintiff sues the defendant seeking a public apology, an investigation of defective or unsafe construction, and $140,000 in damages plus costs.

[3] The plaintiff’s complaint arises from alleged mistreatment by the cafe of a disabled patron whom the plaintiff had befriended. The plaintiff says that he bought his friend a vodka cooler and the cafe refused his request to provide his friend with a glass with ice. The plaintiff says that the waitress loudly and insultingly refused to serve his friend although his friend was hearing disabled and could not hear the insults. As a result, the plaintiff pleads that the defendant violated his right to equal service under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c H.19. The plaintiff pleads that he suffered anxiety for his friend and for all patrons who use the defendant’s establishment.

[4] The plaintiff also claims that the defendant does not provide wheelchair access to its premises; its patio is unsafe in winter; it is a fire hazard; and it has failed to post “no smoking” notices as required under the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 709.

[5] It appears on its face that the claim may be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The plaintiff pleads no basis upon which he is allowed to sue for insults to his friend or concerning the enforcement of provincial or municipal building standards. The plaintiff does not plead any basis to understand that he was discriminated against on a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code. Furthermore, human rights complaints are made to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and not in this court.

[6] The plaintiff should therefore be requested to explain why his claim should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

[7] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 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 Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action;

b. 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 s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43[^1];

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, 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.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: November 23, 2016

[^1]: See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100 at para.