Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-1483 DATE: 20170127 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Rory Adrian Van Sluytman, Plaintiff AND: Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, Defendant
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice J. Di Luca
COUNSEL: Rory Adrian Van Sluytman, in person, for the Plaintiff Meghan Lindo, Counsel for the Defendant
HEARD: January 27, 2017
Endorsement
Introduction
1This is a review commenced on the Court’s own initiative in accordance with Rule 2.1.01 and 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 3, 2017, Healey J. directed the Registrar of the Court to give notice to the plaintiff that the Court was considering whether this action and related motions should be dismissed as being frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the Court’s process. In accordance with the Order of Healey J., the plaintiff was provided an opportunity to provide written submissions explaining why the Court should not make such an order in this case. Those submissions have been received and will be discussed below.
2The plaintiff has commenced many actions. I understand that 11 have been commenced in Bracebridge, one in Oshawa and at least five in Barrie. A number of these actions have been the subject of a similar review conducted by my colleague Wood J., who on January 23, 2017 released 11 Endorsements dealing with the various actions in Bracebridge. On today’s date, I conducted the review of this matter. Yesterday, I released brief Endorsements directing the Registrar to provide notice to and invite submissions from the plaintiff in relation to the four remaining actions in Barrie.
The Plaintiff's Claim and Motions
3This claim relates to the plaintiff’s involuntary stay at the Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital [“the Hospital”] in May 2010. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks damages relating to a period of time when he was detained pursuant to a form under the Mental Health Act. The Plaintiff also seeks compensation for violations of his privacy rights and Charter rights. Lastly, he is seeking compensation for the Hospital’s failure to respond to his request for an inquiry sent on April 22, 2015 and May 15, 2015.
4The statement of claim does not contain a “concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies” as required by Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, the statement of claim is a rambling narrative style document detailing the many grievances purportedly suffered by the plaintiff while he was involuntarily detained in the Hospital. The statement of material fact to be relied upon refers to evidence to be provided by way of an affidavit from the plaintiff as well as evidence from the anticipated responses to be provided by the defendant and others including the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care and the Ministry of the Attorney General.
5In furtherance of this action, the plaintiff has brought four motions. The first motion seeks an order compelling the Ministry of the Attorney General to perform an investigation of the events beginning on May 26, 2010 when he was brought to the Hospital pursuant to a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act.
6The second motion seeks an order compelling Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to conduct a similar investigation.
7The third motion seeks an order compelling Dr. Charles Francis Brewster, a person he seeks to discover as part this action, to provide affidavit responses to written questions.
8The fourth motion seeks an order transferring the case to Bracebridge (Mukoka District) and permitting him to file material by fax/email without the need for commissioned affidavits.
9Rules 2.1.01 and 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permit the Court to dismiss and action or a motion where the Court finds that the action or motion is on its face frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the Court’s process. In Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6100, Myers J. reviews Rule 2.1.01 and provides the following guidance on its application:
Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the “culture shift” mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The new rule tailors appropriate procedural fairness for the category of cases involved and is an example of early resolution of civil cases that is very much in line with the goals set out in Hryniak.
10The approach delineated by Myers J. was approved of by the Court of Appeal in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.
11A proceeding that is “frivolous” or “vexatious” is one which lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been commenced without reasonable grounds. Frivolous and vexatious proceedings are often identified by, among other features, their multiplicity and their use of rambling language which makes discerning a legitimate cause of action very difficult.
Analysis
12In reviewing this claim, I consider the fact that the plaintiff is self-represented and of low income. I am not holding his statement of claim and motion material to the standard regularly expected with material prepared by counsel. More importantly, I have attempted to read past the bad drafting to assess whether the claim reveals anything that could possibly be a genuine cause of action.
13The majority of the claim relates to the plaintiff’s involuntary hospitalization in May of 2010. The claim was not issued until October 12, 2016. Even assuming the claim advances some discernable cause of action, and I do not believe it does, the claim is clearly outside the applicable limitation period and is therefore barred by section 4 of The Limitations Act. Unlike the scenario in Salman v. Patey, 2015 ONSC 2727 where issues of discoverability and an otherwise reasonably well drafted claim militated against the use of Rule 2.1.10, the limitations issue in this case is plain and obvious on the face of this claim. This portion of the action has no chance of success.
14The final portion of the action relates to a claim for damages for the defendant’s failure to investigate and respond to the plaintiff’s request for an inquiry into his involuntary detention at the Hospital. The requests to investigate were made on April 22, 2015 and May 15, 2015. Arguably, this aspect of the claim is not caught by the limitation problem noted above. However, I fail to see how the Hospital’s failure to respond to the plaintiff’s letters and failure to conduct an inquiry gives rise to any cause of action.
15I turn now to the plaintiff’s response to this review. In his written submissions, the plaintiff is openly contemptuous of the Court process. There is nothing in the written submissions, apart from thinly disguised vitriol, that can assist the Court in deciding whether or not to dismiss the action. I am certain that the plaintiff finds the prospect of having his claim dismissed through this summary procedure unfair and unjust. I note his objection and place no weight on his angry comments.
16In my view, the action is frivolous and vexatious. It has no possibility of proceeding to a successful conclusion and it should not be allowed to continue.
17In view of this conclusion, it is not strictly necessary to address the motions that were brought. However, I will add that the two motions seeking an order compelling government ministries to conduct inquiries have no basis in law and are frivolous. I will not comment on the remaining two motions.
Conclusion
18The action is dismissed.
Di Luca J.
Date: January 27, 2017