Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-560580 DATE: 20170324 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Vince DeMasi, Plaintiff AND: The Corporation of The City of Toronto, Defendant

BEFORE: S.F. Dunphy, J.

COUNSEL: Vince DeMasi, for the Self Roberto E. Zuech for the City of Toronto

HEARD: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] The plaintiff Vince DeMasi began this action by way of Statement of Claim issued on September 19, 2016. The matter was brought to me for review on the basis that it appeared that it may be a frivolous or vexatious proceeding to which Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure may apply.

[2] I reviewed the Statement of Claim and issued the following endorsement on October 13, 2016:

“Having carefully reviewed this claim, I have been entirely unable to determine what is claimed and why. On its face, I find this pleading appears to be frivolous and vexatious pursuant to R. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly I am directing the Registrar to give notice to the plaintiff pursuant to R. 2.1.01(3) that the court is consider making an order”.

[3] The Local Registrar provided the plaintiff with Notice in accordance with my direction dated January 25, 2017. Mr. DeMasi provided me with ten pages of written submissions requesting that I not take the proposed step of staying or dismissing the proceeding.

[4] The task of attempting to extract from the statement of claim or the written submissions filed by the plaintiff anything by way of a coherent description of the claim he is advancing is a difficult one. He appears to be objecting in some fashion to some form of lien and claims a Charter-protected fundamental human right to full and unencumbered title to land located at 17 Kennedy Park Road in Toronto. It is possible his land has been lost to a tax sale? I cannot tell. Whether the liens he objects to arise from unpaid taxes or utility rates cannot be discerned.

[5] The plaintiff’s written submissions contain an impressive volume of extracts from various and sundry cases and statutes reproduced through the magic of cut and paste from internet sources. However noticeably absent from the submissions was any attempt to describe to the court what the plaintiff’s complaint is, against whom and why. My state of bafflement remains as profound after reading the submissions as after reading the original statement of claim.

[6] Rule 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires every pleading to contain “a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved”. Self-represented litigants without legal training often have difficulty in complying with this common-sense rule. To be fair, there are a good number of lawyers who do as well.

[7] The court can and must make efforts to accommodate the efforts of self-represented litigants to access the justice system. Reasonable accommodation cannot, however, extend to the point of applying a second set of weights and measures to self-represented litigants. At the end of the day, they must abide by the same rules as other litigants if fairness and impartiality are to be maintained. The court cannot become the advocate for one side or the other.

[8] When a plaintiff commences a statement of claim, defendants are put to expense and jeopardy. The claim must be responded to or there is a risk of default judgment. Documents must be assembled and produced, often at great expense. Privacy is sometimes compromised and parties are required to answer uncomfortable and difficult questions under legal compulsion. The right to require this of a fellow citizen is not absolute.

[9] A plaintiff seeking to set the machinery of litigation in motion must not do so lightly or without proper care and consideration. It is important to think through carefully exactly what the claim is and exactly what facts are relied upon to establish it. These must be set forth coherently and simply. Fancy language or legal terminology is not required. Clarity is.

[10] In my view, the claim in this case cannot with the most generous of readings be construed as complying with Rule 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is incomprehensible. The relief sought is confusingly listed. The basis for the relief sought simply cannot be determined. I have tried.

[11] This claim is accordingly dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As the defendant has not been required to file a statement of defence, there shall be no order as to costs.

S.F. Dunphy, J. Date: March 24, 2017