Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 16-68151 DATE: 20170222 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Xing Yang Zhang, Plaintiff AND XiHaong Zang, Defendant
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
HEARD: By Requisition
Endorsement
[1] This request was referred to me by the Registrar’s Office pursuant to sub-rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written requisition of the Defendant, XiHong Zang a.k.a. Sheng Xue.
[2] Pursuant to rule 2.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the Court has general power to make an order staying or dismissing a proceeding if the proceeding “appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.”
[3] I have examined the Statement of Claim. While only one defendant is named, it is also addressed to the Governor General of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, all Justices at the Supreme Court of Canada, all Canadian Members of Parliament, all Senators of the Parliament of Canada (including a China/CCP spy), RCMP and CSIS, the ambassadors of the USA, Australia and Italy, the United Nations Human Rights Council and Other Human Rights Organization.
[4] The Statement of Claim itself is quite short. The Plaintiff seeks costs in the amount of $50,000 and seeks “terrorism damage and general damage in the amount of $10 million for damaging the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family.” There is a notation that 50% of the amount will be donated to a Mr. Liu Lang, an American resident.
[5] The grounds are identified in the Statement of Claim as follows:
- Since 2011 Plaintiff (Xiang Yang zhang), started protesting China Central Gov./CCP policy: demolishing people’s house to rob land; selling lands to make money; part of money to support China/CCP Spy system world over. China/CCP has been sending Lots of Spies to me, 2013 I finally confirmed ShengXue is China/CCP SPY. As China/CCP Spy collect all about me, 2011 China government/CCP killed my wife’s cousin by designed car-accident, towed 700 m till Die. ShengXue tried to kidnap me from USA, and set up traps for me to violate Canadian laws to stop Plaintiff’s protesting.
- Such further in any other grounds will not provide tell cross exam at Canadian Parliament Hearing.
[6] It is apparent that the Plaintiff may have difficulty expressing himself in the English language. Even if I read the document as generously as possible, I am unable to find a clear cause of action against this Defendant. I have previously dismissed an action commenced by this Plaintiff where allegations of spying were levelled against a Canadian senator. In Zhang v. Oh, 2016 ONSC 3734, I concluded at para. 6:
6 The pleading is nothing more than a bald allegation that Senator Oh is a spy for the Chinese government. The only fact pleaded in support of the Claim is that Senator Oh may have stood approximately eight meters away from the Plaintiff as he protested, and on one occasion, Senator Oh may have taken a picture of him. Moreover, the Plaintiff appears to rely on a non-existent right to a Canadian parliamentary hearing to support his claim. No reasonable cause of action is disclosed against Senator Oh, and given the intended reach of the Statement of Claim, it appears that this action may be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court.
[7] This proceeding appears to be yet another attempt by this Plaintiff to raise his allegations of spying by a foreign government which claims have been previously dismissed. On its face, this action appears to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court, and that resort to Rule 2.1 is appropriate. I therefore make the following orders:
- 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 action;
- 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 section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
- The Registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the Plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with sub-rule 2.1.01(3).
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Date: February 22, 2017