Ontario Superior Court of Justice
CITATION: Reyes v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 5413 COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-579434 DATE: 20170913
BETWEEN:
ALTHEA REYES Applicant
– and –
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Respondent
Counsel: Applicant, acting in person Domenica Polla, for the Respondent
HEARD: In Writing
BEFORE: V.R. CHIAPPETTA j.
Reasons for Judgment
1The applicant makes this application pursuant to subsection 140 (3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.c. 43 and Rule 38.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order granting her leave to bring a motion for a stay pending the appeal of the Order of Justice Perell dated May 31, 2017 declaring her to be a vexatious litigant as well as leave to continue certain unspecified proceedings.
2The application is denied. The evidentiary record before me on this application fails to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds for commencing or continuing any of the proposed motions or proceedings. There is no evidence sufficient to support that the proposed motions or proceedings are nothing more than a continuation of the applicant’s efforts to abuse the process of the court. The Applicant has therefore failed to meet her onus.
3Further, the Applicant has failed to identify any ground of appeal with some reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of demonstrating that there is a serious issue to be tried. Rather, her submissions are both unsupported and without foundation.
4The Applicant in support of this application has proferred no evidence of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favours a stay of the order. The Applicant failed to appear as the hearing date of the application before Justice Perell for the purpose of establishing that certain ongoing proceedings should be exempted from his order. The balance of convenience favours the parties of the applicant’s various proceedings therefore particularly considering the lack of any credible evidence that there are grounds to continue with those proceedings.
5It is noted that the Applicant brought a motion before Justice Lederer on July 18, 2017 which sought in part the same relief being sought in the within application. Justice Lederer dismissed the motion as an abuse of process and on the grounds that the process in Rule 38.13 was not followed.
6Finally, there is no evidence establishing that the Applicant served her application materials on the affected parties in these proceedings as ordered by Justice McEwen on June 20 and June 23, 2017 and required by Rule 38.13.
V.R. Chiappetta J.
Released: September 13, 2017
CITATION: Reyes v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 5413 COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-579434 DATE: 20170913
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ALTHEA REYES Applicant
– and –
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
V.R. Chiappetta J.