Ironside v. Roskam, 2017 ONSC 7416
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
John Ironside
Applicant
– and –
Darren Roskam
Respondent
COUNSEL:
Owen Thompson, for the Applicant
Darren Roskam, Self-Represented
HEARD: September 29, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
1The Applicant is seeking an order declaring Mr. Darren Roskam a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act. The Applicant is also seeking an award for exemplary damages against Mr. Roskam. Finally, the Applicant is seeking injunctive relief to restrain the Respondent from interfering with the Applicant or his agents and also requiring him to remove offending websites which involve the Applicant.
2I will grant the application in part. Mr. Roskam is declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140 and any outstanding matters dealing with the Applicant will be stayed.
3I will address the balance of what is sought by the Applicant in my reasons below.
Facts
Background
4The record filed by the Applicant on this matter is substantial. There is no doubt that Mr. Roskam has been involved in numerous matters with the Barrie Small Claims Court.
5Since 2008, Mr. Roskam has instigated 18 separate lawsuits in the Barrie Small Claims Court and has been sued himself once. Mr. Roskam has also launched 5 appeals of decisions unfavourable to him. Mr. Roskam has represented himself on all of these claims. A summary of the claims are as follows:
i. 3 claims remain before the Court awaiting or in trial;
ii. 1 claim was successful against the Applicant in 2008;
iii. 1 claim was successful in establishing defamation and obtained damages of $1 but Mr. Roskam was found on the defendant’s claim to have defamed the defendant and was ordered to pay $10,000 of damages plus costs;
iv. 7 of the claims were dismissed with Mr. Roskam ordered to pay costs;
v. 6 of the claims were dismissed with no costs;
vi. Of the 5 appeals, the Respondent has not been successful on any of them and has had costs orders made against him; and
vii. On the one claim where Mr. Roskam was sued for defamation, he was found to have defamed the plaintiff and was ordered to pay $7,000 of damages and costs.
6Given Mr. Roskam’s financial circumstances, he has not been in a position to pay any of the filing fees in any of these matters, nor has he paid any of the cost awards or damages ordered against him.
7The record also makes it clear that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abusive and vexatious conduct in the course of pursuing his lawsuits against the Applicant and others. He has routinely been rude, and disparaging to counsel and others in the course of the proceedings. Some of his emails to agents for the Applicant include:
a) “You are a joke. Garbage in a sport jacket. You became a paralegal because you heard it paid more than being a secretary. The better pay is all you want, and are good for. You have no business being in a courthouse or handling legal paperwork. It looks like you let the monkey write the motion.”
b) “What do you care, whore?”
c) “So be it. If you have to create billable hours, I am a Libertarian and I respect the free market. Go make money. How you sleep at night. I don’t know. Take John’s money, which he takes from a woman. Ask God to forgive you for knowingly commissioning lies.”
d) “HOW THE FUCK DO YOU LIKE ME NOW, BITCH?”
e) “I am so sick and tired of your two bit, good for nothing, lying irresponsible, lay, useless son of a bitch client”
8Mr. Roskam has also published attacks on his websites directed at harassing and disparaging the Applicant publicly. The record indicates that Mr. Roskam also attacks individuals that have dealings with the Applicant in order to discourage them from dealing with the Applicant. Comments that the Respondent has posted on various websites he has created include:
a) “This is the kind of company Mr. Ironside keeps, in league as he is with Holocaust deniers, advocates for extreme child abuse and other bottom dwellers who both require, and, must indeed have, a place to hide their names as they spread their lies, porn and hate, which is unsurprising, given that Mr. Ironside does seem to have, perhaps, in our opinion, the notorious “pedosmile,” as referenced here.”
b) “This guy almost never works, and almost never supports his kids. He borrows money from almost everybody he knows, and then won’t work to pay it back. He ruined my Mastercard. A real piece of work, this guy is: lying, scheming, two faced philandering bum and scam artist who includes his own kids in his scam.”
c) “John, Jedi Ironside is a lying, scheming thieving, child-abusing, blackmailing, using, taking, manipulating chickenshit SCHMUCK”
d) “If you are a woman, do not allow him to take nude photographs of you, for even though I can’t say which women he has done this to, he has taken pictures, and then used them for blackmail, afterwards. Those are facts. He will ruin your life, as you suffer in silence.”
9Mr. Roskam has even attended at the Family Law Court in Barrie and obtained documents from the Applicant’s family law file and posted these documents on his website in an attempt to undermine the character of the Applicant.
Justice Boswell’s Ruling in 2010
10In 2010, Mr. Jacoby Hawkins brought an application against Mr. Roskam seeking that he be declared a vexatious litigant. After reviewing the evidence, Justice Boswell granted the application. The reasons of Justice Boswell include the following:
a) “Mr. Roskam has done his best to engage the Repondent’s (Jacoby Hawkins) lawyer on a personal level and he has been abusive and disrespectful in doing so.”
b) “Mr Roskam’s behaviour during the course of, and certainly after the Small Claims litigation with the Respondent has been, and continues to be appalling. It is abusive and harassing in nature. It includes inappropriate and hurtful personal comments about the Respondent and his counsel”.
c) “[G]iven Mr. Roskam’s history, there is a very real risk that his inappropriate and vexatious behaviour - outside of court - will continue.”
11The order of Justice Boswell declaring Mr. Roskam a vexatious litigant was limited to a one year period to provide Mr. Roskam with a “cooling off period”. Much of the conduct outlined above has occurred after the expiry of Justice Boswell’s order.
Mr. Roskam’s Ongoing Inappropriate Conduct
12After being served with the Application here, the Respondent has continued with his aggressive and abusive pattern of emails and website postings necessitating the filing of supplemental materials. Amongst numerous other emails and postings included in the materials filed. For example:
By way of email dated July 19, 2017, Mr. Roskam writes that he knows that he lost a “councillor appointment because of this ongoing fight. John has to be taking damage, himself…With that gig lost to me, I wanted to damage John as much as I could, in return, one more time, before I tried again to settle.”
By way of email dated July 20, 2017, Mr. Roskam indicates that he has taken websites down but unless his offer is accepted everything will go back up and he will email every MPP in the province in an effort to insure that Frank Nelson, a client of the Applicant’s, will need good luck in seeking any funding for Mr. Nelson’s project.
By way of a posting on his website www.darrenroskam.com: Update for January 12, 2017: Titled Deadbeat Dad, John Ironside: “The clown does not sue me, because if he did, I would, metaphorically speaking, kick his candy ass for him at court and force him to admit that he is a con artist.” “John squealed like the pig he is,… What a baby.”
Actions of the Applicant, John Ironside
13Mr. Roskam has three matters currently outstanding against the Applicant, Mr. Ironside.
14One of the outstanding claims deals with a video which the Applicant himself posted online alleging that Mr. Roskam discriminates against the lesbian and gay community, and was arrested and charged for cyber-harassing three women, aged 18-40. This video remains live on YouTube. Mr. Roskam takes the position that the statements made in this video are false.
15Mr. Roskam also filed a USB on the hearing which showed the Applicant following Mr. Roskam around a parking lot demanding an interview. Despite Mr. Roskam’s attempts to get away, the Applicant continued following him around. In Mr. Roskam’s materials, he explains the event in the following way:
I was running for the Libertarian Party for the 2014 provincial election. Mr. Ironside stalked me to a debate at a church, and went after me with a camera and tried to ask me questions. I ignored him. He then emailed MPP, Rod Jackson, me and literally hundreds of others with an email and an attached PDF with his signature, filled with libel of myself and then Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Ironside asked for an interview from Mr. Jackson and myself.
16The letter the Applicant emailed to Mr. Jackson and many others includes various paragraphs pertaining to Mr. Roskam including:
Unlike existing local media, we will be focusing on the big picture, such as this story of apparent collusion between yourself and the “Libertarian” “candidate”; a man who admitted he “rode Welfare” and who now appears to stand by you in support of reducing the very services that he admitted he abused.
I referred to Darren Roskam’s behaviour as “bizarre” as frankly I cannot think of any other word to describe the various oratory and published statements of a man who works so hard to attack the LGBT sector of our population while at the same time practically screaming in so many ways that he is himself a repressed, self-loathing member of that community. You know what they say about somebody who doth protest too much.
17The Applicant also claims to be legitimately pursuing an exposé documentary called: “Hypocrisy in Hazzard County” wherein he suggests that Mr. Roskam is involved in some type of political conspiracy. The Applicant currently maintains a website wherein he has posted the following remarks which seem to clearly target Mr. Roskam:
We had put the matter to rest; however, interest has been drawn to our story and the evidence we presented due to the fact that the above mentioned individual, a self-admitted rider of Welfare and lackey to local Conservative interests, has filed a plethora of frivolous and unsuccessful civil court actions against our Producer throughout the past three years in a transparent attempt to silence this story by means of bullying.
The lackey and those he serves also seem oblivious to the fact that our Producer is now in a considerably better position to continue production of the 'Hypocrisy in Hazzard County' documentary.
Analysis
Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act
18The Applicant’s request for a declaration that Mr. Roskam is a vexatious litigant is made under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides as follows:
140(1) Where a judge of the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied, on application, that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds,
(a) instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or
(b) conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner,
the judge may order that,
(c) no further proceeding be instituted by the person in any court; or
(d) a proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court not be continued,
except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
19The purpose of section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act is to protect litigants and the overall integrity of the justice system against those who continually abuse the court process by engaging in frivolous and vexation litigation. Section 140 essentially codifies the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice to control its own process. The underlying rationale for s. 140 was discussed by Blair, J.A. in Foy v. Foy (1979), 1979 CanLII 1631 (ON CA), 26 O.R. (2d) 220:
It is not difficult to perceive the object of the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The protection afforded honest litigants by the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction to control abuse of process is subject to a serious limitation. It can only be exercised ex post facto. The vexatious litigant has the luxury of being able to initiate proceedings and to force the other party to the expense and inconvenience of responding. The severe financial burden which can be inflicted on a responding party is made obvious by this case. Moreover, the onus of proving that a proceeding is an abuse of process will always be on the responding party. Clearly the purpose of this legislation was to overcome the unfair advantage enjoyed by a vexatious litigant and, in cases where an order is made under the Act, to place upon him the onus of establishing that any proposed proceedings are not an abuse of the process of the Court. Significantly, the vexatious litigant is not deprived of the right to bring proceedings. Rather, the burden is shifted: the vexatious litigant must establish to the Court's satisfaction that there is a prima facie ground for the proposed proceedings. [Emphasis added]
20The section itself is not directed at punishing the vexatious litigant, but rather at limiting the costs imposed on the system and other litigants from the vexatious litigant’s behaviour. It is important to note that the vexatious litigant is not forever deprived of the right to launch court proceedings by an order under section 140. Rather, the order allows the court to supervise the initiation of such proceedings. The burden is shifted to the vexatious litigant to establish that there is a reasonable basis for the proposed proceedings. Where such justification can be provided, leave to pursue the proceeding may be granted. See: Roskam v. Jacoby-Hawkins, 2010 ONSC 4439, at paras. 19, 25; Foy v. Foy (No.2); see also Dobson v. Green, 2012 ONSC 4432 at paras. 6-13.
21In the application of these principles, a court may consider a wide range of proceedings in which an allegedly vexatious litigant has participated. Whether or not any proceedings have been pursued vexatiously is to be judged on an objective standard. See: Predie v. Barrie (City), [2006] O.J. No. 1524 (S.C.J.) at paras. 28-29; Ontario v. Deutch, [2004] O.J. No. 535 (S.C.J.) at paras. 16-22; Streiman & Kurz LLP v. De Teresi (2007), 2007 CanLII 1902 (ON SC), 84 O.R. (3d) 383 (S.C.J.) at paras. 6-9.
22In addition, the court is not strictly limited to the conduct of the allegedly vexatious litigant in the courtroom. The behavior of a litigant both inside and outside of the courtroom may be relevant. As explained by Campbell J. in Dobson v. Green, supra, it is not uncommon for a vexatious litigant to utilize the court process as part of an overall strategy of abuse and harassment.
Is the Respondent a Vexatious Litigant?
23Considering the complete record on this application, I am satisfied that the Mr. Roskam is a “vexatious litigant” within the meaning of s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act. Mr. Roskam has “persistently and without reasonable grounds” conducted his matters in a “vexatious” manner. While in many instances, Mr. Roskam may believe his behaviour is warranted, it is not.
24As explained Henry J. in Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1987), 1987 CanLII 172 (ON SC), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.J.) at para. 9:
Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;
25I have no doubt, from reviewing the record and the emails, videos and correspondence between the Applicant and Mr. Roskam, the proceedings instituted against the Applicant are directed at getting him back for a historical feud they seem to have with each other. The claims appear to be part of a scorecard between the Applicant and Respondent where they each try and record a victory of some sort against the other. The problem with this type of behaviour is that the public is being forced to bear the costs of it. This is simply not acceptable in a system which is already overburdened with matters that truly need attention.
26Most troubling is the way in which Mr. Roskam conducts himself, and the way in which he engages participants on the other side. His correspondence and dealings with the Applicant’s agent are inexcusable. Court proceedings are not to be used as a mechanism to further such blatant forms of harassment.
Should an Order Be Made Prohibiting the Respondent From Further Litigation?
27The declaration that the respondent is a “vexatious litigant” does not mean that an order must necessarily follow. The legislation uses discretionary language in suggesting that, in such circumstances, such an order “may” be made. Dobson v. Green, 2012 ONSC 4432 at paras. 6-13.
28In my view, this is an appropriate case in which to make an order under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.
29Moving forward, Mr. Roskam will require leave of this Court before commencing any future proceedings. That request for leave must be submitted in writing.
Should the Current Matters against the Applicant be Stayed?
30Given the general nature of the bickering that has gone on between the Applicant and the Respondent, Mr. Roskam’s outstanding claims against the Applicant will also be stayed. Given the antagonistic relationship he has with the Applicant and his agents, I am satisfied that the propriety of the claims warrant review. They will only continue if leave is granted pursuant to s. 140(3).
Should the Injunctive Relief Against the Respondent be Granted?
31The Applicant has also sought an injunction requiring Mr. Roskam to remove any postings referring to him from the Internet, including postings on Mr. Roskam’s webpages, and from Youtube and preventing Mr. Roskam from making any future postings about the Applicant in the future.
32He also seeks an order transferring the domain name of www.hypocrisyinhazzardcounty.com to the Applicant at the sole cost and expense of the Mr. Roskam.
33Further, he seeks an order restraining Mr. Roskam from having any contact directly or indirectly with the Applicant or his family, and to remain at least 200 metres away from John David Ironside at all times.
34In order for an order for an injunction to be granted, there has to be an underlying case that could result in a finding that a defendant/respondent has committed or engaged in some form of tortious conduct. The Applicant relies on the torts of harassment, defamation, and invasion of privacy in support of his claim for relief.
35I have no doubt that the actions of Mr. Roskam would be sufficient to engage this Court’s authority to grant the relief sought under the heads of defamation and harassment. The problem is that the Applicant himself has been involved in the same type of behaviour against Mr. Roskam. The Applicant has posted videos about Mr. Roskam on his own websites, has followed Mr. Roskam around at events, and has made inappropriate remarks about Mr. Roskam online in a very similar way. While the Applicant characterizes these remarks as “political commentary”, I cannot accept that these comments are directed exclusively at furthering political discourse. In my view, they are also very much personal attacks on Mr. Roskam. In short, the Applicant has come to this Court seeking relief with “unclean hands”. Accordingly, I am not prepared to grant the relief he seeks.
36Both parties have indicated that they would prefer not to have anything to do with each other moving forward. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Roskam made the request that the Applicant be required to keep away from him. Accordingly, I will make an order directing both the Applicant, Mr. John David Ironside and the Respondent, Mr. Darren Roskam not to communicate with each other directly or indirectly. I will also order that both Mr. Roskam and Mr. Ironside not come within 200 metres of each other.
Exemplary Damages
37In the circumstances of this case, I am not prepared to make an award of exemplary damages. If the Applicant was not so implicated in provoking Mr. Roskam’s behaviour, the situation would be different. However, I am not going to weigh in on this feud by granting exemplary damages against Mr. Roskam. In my view, the Respondent’s actions have been adequately addressed by way of the section 140 order.
Disposition
38Having found Darren Roskam to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, I order the following:
- No action, originating process, proceeding, motion or appeal of any kind may be instituted by Darren Roskam with respect to any individual, corporation, or entity, in any court in Ontario without first obtaining leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
- No appeal of any kind may be initiated or continued before the Court of Appeal for Ontario by Darren Roskam, without first obtaining leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, with the sole exception of an appeal against this order by me on this application.
- Darren Roskam is prohibited from directly or indirectly continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any court in Ontario, on his own behalf or on behalf of anyone else, until such time as he has obtained leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and pursuant to the terms of this Order.
- If Darren Roskam brings an application under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act for leave, the application shall be in writing and without an oral hearing.
- If Darren Roskam brings an application under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, he shall provide prior written notice to the proposed defendants and/or existing defendants in the proceedings he wishes to institute and/or continue.
- If Darren Roskam does file documents, institute proceedings, or continue proceedings in any court in Ontario without first filing an issued and entered order granting him leave to do so, the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this order.
- John David Ironside and Darren Roskam are not to communicate with each other directly or indirectly.
- John David Ironside and Darren Roskam must not come within 200 metres of each other without the consent of the other.
Justice C.F. de Sa
Released: December 14, 2017