Strang v. Ontario (Treasury Board), 2017 ONSC 1638

CITATION: Strang v. Ontario (Treasury Board), 2017 ONSC 1638

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-566304

DATE: 20170313

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: MARGARET STRANG (MALGORZATA), Plaintiff

-and-

CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO – STATIO FISCI: TREASURY BOARD et al., Defendants

READ: March 10, 2017

ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement dated February 9, 2017, reported at 2017 ONSC 993, the court directed the registrar to send a notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court was considering dismissing this action under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face.

[2] The registrar sent the plaintiff a notice in Form 2.1A. No submissions have been received from the plaintiff within the allotted time. While making all manner of bald, heinous allegations against many individuals, the pleading as a whole bears hallmarks of querulent litigant. Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497 at paras. 14 and 15. The claim appears to be frivolous in the sense of having no chance of success as discussed in Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 7815 (ON CA). This is an appropriate case for Rule 2.1 to apply.

[3] The action is therefore dismissed. The defendants are entitled to costs if demanded payable forthwith after assessment by an assessment officer.

[4] I dispense with any requirement for the plaintiff’s approval of the formal dismissal order as to form or content.

[5] I direct the registrar to provide a copy of this endorsement to the parties by mail and email (to those whose email addresses it has) and to serve the formal order on the plaintiff in accordance with rule 2.1.01(5).

F.L. Myers J.

Date: March 13, 2017