Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 16-70245 DATE: 20170110 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: DARREN ROSS NODDLE, Plaintiff AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE, THE WORLD BANK, Defendants
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 Attorney General of Canada. The requisition was copied to the Plaintiff.
[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] The Statement of Claim commences with a heading for the following words appear in bold print: Negligence-Abuse of Process-Harassment-Defamation. In terms of the relief sought; the Plaintiff seeks to be exonerated of all current and previous criminal record, full pardon, criminal record sealed for the Plaintiff, and $31 million in compensation plus interest arising from another proceeding, CV-16-546628 (Toronto) from February 12, 2016. He also seeks aggravated, special and punitive damages; pre-and post-judgment interest and costs.
[4] The Statement of Claim is difficult to understand and the role that each of the Defendants are alleged to have played. In the first paragraph, he alleges that the Defendant Attorney General of Canada and the Deputy Attorney General of Canada abused the process of the court by not informing the Plaintiff of another civil action being, CV-16-553129 (Toronto).
[5] In the next paragraph, the Plaintiff alleges:
The alarming issue that citizens in Canada are being injured, disabled, induced suicide, brain tissue damage and multiple autoimmune disorders, as a result of a defective medication the Attorney General of Canada and the Deputy Attorney General of Canada made the choice to cover up. The refusal of evidence, refusal of disclosure and ongoing 20 year harassment from the Attorney General of Canada and the Deputy Attorney General of Canada on the Plaintiff including the Plaintiff’s pursuits to aluminate world hunger that resulted in publishing a photo of the Plaintiff in May 2014 from a criminal record dated back to 1994 resulting in defamation of the Plaintiff.
[6] The Plaintiff then goes on to make a number of allegations against the Deputy Attorney General with respect to this 1994 criminal record and he references a conviction on October 29, 2014 and cites another court file, being 161556-5-KC (Victoria, British Columbia). He makes reference to criminal record in 1994 and the dismissal of a charge in 1999 in relation to that charge as well as an acquittal in 2001 relating to that record. He alleges that these lawsuits sought compensation for some form of harassment.
[7] He alleges that in December 2013, he was arrested for criminal harassment for seeking medical attention. He then alleges that someone published his 1994 criminal record once again in May 2014. He claims to have filed an affidavit in support of a defamation claim on January 26, 2016 and that the claim was struck without any knowledge on his part. This might be another action commenced in Toronto, namely, CV-16-560878 that he refers to later on. He then goes on to reference 11 Federal Court files.
[8] The Statement of Claim does not comply with the basic rules of pleadings and the allegations are incomprehensible on their face. Three defendants are named, but apart from naming the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General in two paragraphs, there is no allegation of any kind against the World Bank and the Minister of Defence.
[9] In Currie v. Halton (Region) Police Services Board, [2003] O.J. No. 4516, at paras. 14-17, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the phrase “frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court” found in rule 21.01(3)(d). This phrase is also used in rule 2.1.01(1). The Court of Appeal concluded:
It is apparent that there is a degree of overlap in the meaning of the terms frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process. What I take from the authorities is that any action for which there is clearly no merit may qualify for classification as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The common example appears to be the situation where a plaintiff seeks to re-litigate a cause which has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
[10] It appears that the Plaintiff has commenced multiple proceedings with respect to the same issues that are vaguely identified in this action. This is, in and of itself, the hallmark of a vexatious litigant. This proceeding appears on its face 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: January 10, 2017