Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: i, Christopher Michael Taraba; [a] man, Claimant/Prosecutor
AND:
Susan Erwin; [a] [wo]man, Wrongdoer(s)
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert B. Reid
COUNSEL: Claimant/Prosecutor self-represented
Judith Parker, Counsel, for the Wrongdoer(s)
HEARD: September 28, 2017, in Chambers
Endorsement
[1]
Background
By letter from counsel for Susan Erwin dated May 30, 2017, a written request was made pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1) and 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that the court dismiss the proceeding because it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
2In response, the Registrar was directed by the Court to give a notice in form 2.1A to the Claimant/Prosecutor that the court was considering making the order requested. That form was dated June 13, 2017 and forwarded to the Claimant/Prosecutor. It required a filing within 15 days of receipt responding to the notice. No response was received.
3In default of response, this court is entitled to make an order without any further notice to the parties pursuant to rule 2.1.01(3)3.
[4]
The Claim
The initial claim is stated to be for: “wrong of trespass by way of extortion”. No further particulars are provided. No action by Ms. Erwin is alleged.
5Additional materials were filed, dated May 14, 2017 by the Claimant/Prosecutor. Those materials consist of a “Notice: Signatures”; a “Notice: Verifications”; a “Notice: ‘right to pursue a claim’”; a “Notice: Jurisdiction”; a “Notice: court; Court; COURT” and what appears to be a covering letter dated May 15, 2017. The materials suggest some dispute about the Claimant/Prosecutor’s access to his court file.
6Based on the language, format and punctuation used in the documents filed, it appears that the Claimant/Prosecutor is within a category of vexatious litigant labeled by ACJ Rooke of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 as “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants”.
[7]
Analysis
I acknowledge that the use of rule 2.1.01 should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process.
8In this case, the Claimant/Prosecutor has provided no basis for any claim against Ms. Erwin. It is not a matter of lack of particulars. The claim is simply vexatious and an abuse of the court process. It should not be allowed to proceed in any fashion thereby wasting judicial and administrative resources. The additional filings support my conclusion. They are incomprehensible.
[9]
Disposition
The claim is dismissed.
[10]
Costs
In what I hope is the unlikely event that Ms. Erwin seeks a costs order flowing from this decision, she may serve and file a costs outline and no more than two pages of submissions on costs (including both the level and the quantum of costs sought) by October 16, 2017. The Claimant/Prosecutor may respond with up to two pages of written submissions by October 30, 2017. If submissions are not received by October 30, 2017, the issue of costs will be deemed resolved without further order.
Reid J.
Date: September 28, 2017