Court File and Parties

Citation: Figliano v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2017 ONSC 5683 Court File No.: CV-17-567029 Date: 2017-09-25 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Christan Figliano, Plaintiff And: Toronto Police Services Board et al., Defendants

Before: Justice Glustein

Endorsement

[1] Further to my endorsement of July 19, 2017, the plaintiff Christan Figliano (“Figliano”) was given notice that the court was considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”), dismissing this action.

[2] I received and reviewed Figliano’s written submissions delivered under Rule 2.1.01(3).

[3] Figliano submits that:

(i) he had no notice that a Rule 2.1.01 decision was sought or granted by Chiappetta J. by endorsement dated November 24, 2016 (the “Dismissal Order”); and

(ii) the allegations in the claims are different since “my legal claims were amended by myself” and, as such, the judge[^1] looked only at the original filed claim, not the amendments made by me at the court office”.

[4] I address each of these submissions below.

[5] With respect to the issue of notice, even if Figliano did not have notice that the Dismissal Order was sought or granted, the present action remains frivolous and vexatious. It is an abuse of process to relitigate issues decided by a court of proper jurisdiction. The present action is identical to CV-16-545287 and brought against the same defendants (with the same typographical errors of repeating on multiple occasions the names of the same defendants). The present action is for the same relief.

[6] In essence, Figliano seeks to set aside the Dismissal Order by way of a new action. This is an abuse of process. Figliano may have recourse under Rule 37.14(4) to set aside the Dismissal Order, either by motion before Justice Chiappetta (Rule 37.14(4)(a)) or by motion before another judge (under Rule 37.14(4)(b)). However, he cannot indirectly attempt to set aside an existing order by commencing the present action for the same relief against the same defendants.

[7] With respect to any amendments that Figliano may have made himself at the court office, I have no record of such an amended claim. In any event, the issue is irrelevant. Justice Chiappetta dismissed both the claims in CV-16-545286 and CV-16-545287. Those claims were dismissed regardless of what amendments were made to the pleadings. Again, if Figliano did not have notice of the Rule 2.1.01 proceedings before Chiappetta J. and if the proper pleadings (if such existed) were not before Chiappetta J., his recourse is to bring a motion under Rule 37.14(4), not to start a new action with the same defendants and for the same relief.

[8] Even if the Dismissal Order was set aside through a Rule 37.14(4) motion, this action would remain an abuse of process as it seeks to relitigate the same issues that would be before the court.

[9] Consequently, I dismiss the claim in Court File CV-17-567029, without costs. I dispense with any requirement for the plaintiff to approve the form and content of the order.

Justice Glustein

Date: September 25, 2017

[^1]: I believe Figliano is referring to me based on my reasons in my July 19, 2017 endorsement, but I am not certain.