Court File and Parties
Citation: Lin v. Ombudsman Ontario, 2017 ONSC 966 Court File No.: CV-16-563429 Date: 2017-02-10 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: KATHERINE LIN, Plaintiff And: OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO, SUE HASLAM, WENDY RAY, WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD, FAIR PRACTICES COMMISSION, ELIZABETH WITMER, TOM IRVINE, HAN DONG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, SOCIAL JUSTICE TRIBUNALS ONTARIO, MICHAEL GOTTHEIL, CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD, HUMAN RIGHT TRIBUNAL ONTARIO, LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, GOBINDER RANDHAWA, CLAUDETTE LESLIE, VINCENT CHING, IAVGO COMMUNITY LEGAL CLINC, MARY DINUCEI, ANTONY SINGLETON NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP-TORONTO, PAMELA SIDEY, THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, BAY COLLEGE ENAL CENTRE, SAM ALFASIH, HSBC CANADA, GRACIE PAGAYON, ROYAL BANK OF CANDA, RUI (RAY) ZHEN, JIN QING CHENG, Defendants
Before: Madam Justice V.R. Chiappetta Heard: In Writing
Endorsement
Background
1By endorsement dated November 23, 2016 I stayed this action and directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A.
2The plaintiff responded with written submissions as to why her action should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1. Her submissions are summarized as follows: “this court has involved in the harassment” and “the rule of law has been destroyed by the court.”
3I also received submissions from counsel for Han Dong, Mr. Siegel, at my request, strictly limited to his assertion that the statement of claim raises matters similar to those listed in previous actions and that were previously the subject of Rule 2.1 rulings. Mr. Seigel’s submissions are summarized as follows:
The Lin v. Rock Matters
The Lin v. Rock Matters
Lin v. Rock, 2015 CarswellOnt 4501; 2015 ONSC 1929; 252 A.C.W.S. (3d) 43 Ontario Superior Court of Justice March 26, 2015
Lin v. Rock, 2015 ONSC 2421 Ontario Superior Court of Justice April 14, 2015 (motion dismissed under r. 2.1.01)
Lin v. Rock, 2015 CarswellOnt 15448; 2015 CarswellOnt 15447 Supreme Court of Canada October 08, 2015 (see http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=36543 for Order re vexatious conduct dated 2016-03-10)
Lin v. Rock, 2016 CarswellOnt 3038; 2016 ONSC 1638; 264 A.C.W.S. (3d) 112 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) March 02, 2016
Lin v. Rock, 2016 CarswellOnt 10280; 2016 ONSC 4251; 268 A.C.W.S. (3d) 42 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) June 27, 2016
Lin v. Rock, 2016 CarswellOnt 13805; 2016 CarswellOnt 13806 Supreme Court of Canada September 01, 2016
The allegations against Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and Ms. Sidey are set out in paragraphs 31 and 149 to 157 of the Statement of Claim. As pleaded, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and Ms. Sidey represented Ms. Lin’s former employer, Dr. Rock and his professional corporation, in an action commenced by Ms. Lin.
Counsel for Ms. Sidey and Norton Rose advises that many of the allegations contained in paragraphs 150 through 153 of Ms. Lin’s claim were raised by Ms. Lin and addressed by a Master in February 2015, in an endorsement that does not appear online. What is accessible, however is the appeal decision of Mr. Justice Whitaker at 2015 ONSC 1929, who in dismissing the appeal noted, “the Master reviewed the appellant's statement of claim on a line-by-line basis, explaining why it was unsuitable and inappropriate in the pleading” (at para 12). Ms. Lin then attempted to appeal the Master’s Order all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. She was unsuccessful on each occasion.
Along the way to that outcome, Justice Myers (2015 ONSC 2421) attempted to direct the plaintiff towards a potentially more practical course of action by seeking free legal help, but as can be seen from the subsequent course of events, the effort bore no fruit (paras 11 – 13) .
Subsequently, Ms. Lin’s claim against Dr. Rock and his company was dismissed by a different Master for failing to pay six outstanding cost Orders totalling over $11,000 (including costs orders arising from her appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada). Ms. Lin appealed. Counsel for Ms. Sidey and Norton Rose advises that in her factum to the Divisional Court, Ms. Lin again raised many of the allegations contained in paragraphs 150 -154 and 156 of the Claim, and that in that factum and on prior occasions, Ms. Lin accused Ms. Sidey of bullying, threatening, harassing, cheating, lying, “setting traps”, acting in bad faith, deliberately mishandling the case, distorting the Rules and various breaches of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s “Code of Conduct”. In March 2016, Justice Stewart dismissed Ms. Lin’s appeal, with costs (2016 ONSC 1638).
The Lin v. Griether Matter
The Lin v. Griether Matter
Lin v. Griether, 2015 CarswellOnt 3082; 2015 ONSC 1541; 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 334 Ontario Superior Court of Justice March 09, 2015 (action dismissed under Rule 2.1.01)
Lin v. Griether, 2016 CarswellOnt 5724; 2016 CarswellOnt 5725 Supreme Court of Canada April 14, 2016
This matter was brought against two individuals and the Toronto and Vancouver Police Services. While there is no overlap of parties, the circumstances as described by Justice Myers (2015 ONSC 1541) parallel in some ways, the present statement of claim. In her pleading, Ms. Lin made various allegations against the court, referring to “sick judgements” that appear to be the same, or similar to the ones she complains of as against Justice Sachs and the court administration, in paragraph 101 et seq. of the present statement of claim. .In particular, she alleges “misconduct” and a “deliberate” breach of law (see page 15 of the statement of claim) and a destruction of the rule of law (see page 16 of the statement of claim), as well as that the Court Registrar “lied” (see para 104 c. of the statement of claim) and that Justice Sachs did an “awful” job (para 107 c. of the statement of claim) and “talked nonsense” (para 107 d. of the statement of claim).
At paragraph 7 of his endorsement, Justice Myers stated, “Finally, the plaintiff's allegations against the court and "two extremely sick judgments" which were not only patently correct, but actually included efforts by a judge to assist the plaintiff, establish that the plaintiff displays aspects of the behaviour of a vexatious litigant that justifies resort to rule 2.1 in this case.”
Lin v. Toronto Police Services Board
Lin v. Toronto Police Services Board
Lin v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 CarswellOnt 16642; 2016 ONSC 6736 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) October 27, 2016
This matter bears Divisional Court docket number 386/16, and is referenced in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim.
There is no overlap of parties in this matter, however, and it appears to be distinct from the Grethier matters that also involved the Toronto Police. In his Rule 2.1.01 determination, Justice Nordheimer noted that Ms. Lin’s Notice of Application for Judicial Review was “itself, unintelligible in terms of the relief sought and, most notably, the grounds for any relief”. In this regard, there is a broad parallel to be drawn to the statement of claim in the present matter.
The Lin v. Zhang Matters
The Lin v. Zhang Matters
Lin v. Zhang, 2015 CarswellOnt 20290; 2015 ONSC 7844; 262 A.C.W.S. (3d) 748 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) December 11, 2015
Lin v. Zhang, 2016 CarswellOnt 5936; 2016 ONSC 2485; 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 373 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) April 18, 2016 (application and two appeals dismissed under Rule 2.1.01)
Lin v. Zhang, 2016 CarswellOnt 14407; 2016 CarswellOnt 14406 Supreme Court of Canada September 15, 2016
This lattermost citation bears Supreme Court of Canada docket number 36956, and is referenced in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim.
These are Landlord and Tenant matters, involving administrative proceedings that commenced before the Landlord and Tenant Board, a defendant in the present matter, along with its members, Gobinder Randhawa, Claudette Leslie and Vincent Ching. On the first Divisional Court appearance (2015 ONSC 7844), Justice Corbett commented upon the plaintiff’s pattern of conduct at paragraph 4: “Moreover, we tend to agree with the landlord that Ms. Lin appears to have engaged in a pattern of vexatious litigation. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to conduct a vexatious litigant hearing. Such a hearing is brought under s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act before a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice. Therefore, the landlord's request for a vexatious litigant's order is dismissed without prejudice to such an application”
The matter returned to the Divisional Court, before Justice Sachs, in 2016 (2016 ONSC 2485). Paragraph 2 of her endorsement sets out the content of the plaintiff’s submissions, the terms of which bear a striking resemblance to the content of the present statement of claim. The Court’s decision, under Rule 2.1, was pursued to no avail, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Lin v. ICBC Matters
The Lin v. ICBC Matters
Lin v. ICBC Vancouver Head Office, 2016 CarswellOnt 5184; 2016 ONSC 2262; 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 68 Ontario Superior Court of Justice April 04, 2016 (action dismissed under Rule 2.1.01)
Lin v. ICBC Vancouver Head Office, 2016 CarswellOnt 9736; 2016 ONSC 3934; 268 A.C.W.S. (3d) 559 Ontario Superior Court of Justice June 20, 2016 (appeal dismissed under Rule 2.1.01)
There is no overlap of parties in these matters. Nevertheless, it appears that in 2016 ONSC 2262, Ms. Lin raised the same matters that were previously the subject of Rule 2.1 rulings in Lin v. William Rock et al., 2015 ONSC 2421 and Lin v. Griether, 2015 ONSC 1541, and that she simply “expanded her parties and the relief sought” and raised “discrete issues of harassment by the defendants”.
Justice Myers commented, at paragraph 3, “In all, it is apparent on the face of the Statement of Claim and in Ms. Lin’s submissions that she has no legal basis to sue any of the defendants in this court. I am sorry that Ms. Lin feels that she is being repeatedly harassed and that she cannot find a remedy that satisfies her. But there is no basis to sue government bodies that have made decisions under applicable regulatory regimes or private individuals for discrete matters that do not individually amount to a cause of action at private law. Neither does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the BC Human Rights Code provide a free standing cause of action against governments and private individuals for the harassment claimed.”
Ms. Lin’s “repeated attempts to sue” were characterized by Justice Myers. as abusive and vexatious at paragraph 4.
It is suggested that parallels can be drawn to the present action in that Ms. Lin references various of her prior proceedings (as she does at paragraph 27 of the present statement of claim) as the origination of the “harassment”, and has arguably once again “expanded her parties and the relief sought” with a roster of 29 disparate defendants and by alleging that the harassment is “ongoing”. In the current matter, she has pleaded at paragraph 27 that the ongoing harassment has caused her to commence the action (collectively) against the present defendants.
Lin v. Springboard
Lin v. Springboard
Lin v. Springboard, 2016 CarswellOnt 11983; 2016 ONSC 4705; 269 A.C.W.S. (3d) 202 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) July 22, 2016 (application for judicial review dismissed under Rule 2.1.01)
This matter is specifically referenced in paragraph 111 – 122 of the statement of claim. Justice Sachs found the plaintiff’s application for judicial review involving the defendant the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, (and through it, the defendants the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario and the Executive Chair of the Social Justice Tribunals, Michael Gottheil), to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. An application for leave to appeal from this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, 2016 ONCA 787.
Lin v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal)
Lin v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal)
Lin v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2016 CarswellOnt 13803; 2016 CarswellOnt 13804
This matter bears Supreme Court of Canada docket number 37007, and is referenced in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim.
It is difficult to discern from the Supreme Court of Canada leave decision whether it arises from one of the other matters cited herein.
Lin v. Li
Lin v. Li
Lin v. Li, 2016 CarswellOnt 13734; 2016 CarswellOnt 13735 Supreme Court of Canada September 01, 2016
This matter bears Supreme Court of Canada docket number 37009, and is referenced in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim.
It is difficult to discern from the Supreme Court of Canada leave decision whether it arises from one of the other matters cited herein.
Lin v. Wong
Lin v. Wong
Lin v. Wong, 2016 CarswellOnt 13736; 2016 CarswellOnt 13737 Supreme Court of Canada September 01, 2016
This matter bears Supreme Court of Canada docket number 37010, and is referenced in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim.
This matter arose from the plaintiff’s Human Rights complaints against her then-Member of Provincial Parliament, and a judicial review application dismissed on March 14, 2016, an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed on May 6, 2016, an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed on September 1, 2016, and a motion to the Supreme Court of Canada for reconsideration that was not accepted for filing on October 21, 2016. This was followed by an Order of the court on January 4, 2017 per Justice Brown:
WHEREAS the Registrar has sent Ms. Lin a notice under Rule 67 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the Registrar has requested that a judge issue an order under Rule 66(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada;
AND HAVING considered the material filed;
AND GIVEN THAT I am satisfied that the filing of further documents would be vexatious;
I HEREBY ORDER THAT Ms. Lin is prohibited from filing further documents relating to these proceedings.
Identical Orders appear on the Supreme Court of Canada website in respect of other Supreme Court of Canada matters referenced above, as follows:
Katherine Lin v. William Rock, et al. Supreme Court of Canada Docket No. 37008
Katherine Lin v. William Rock, et al. Supreme Court of Canada Docket No. 36543
Katherine Lin v. Thomas Griether, et al. Supreme Court of Canada Docket No. 36743
Katherine Lin v. Jing Zhang, et al. Supreme Court of Canada Docket No. 36956
Katherine Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal Ontario, et al. Supreme Court of Canada Docket No. 37007
Katherine Lin v. Qing Qing Li, et al. Supreme Court of Canada Docket No. 37009
Subsequent to the institution of the Wong proceeding, the plaintiff moved her residence from the electoral district of her former MPP, Ms. Wong, to that of her current MPP, the defendant Han Dong. The subject matter of the present claim as it relates to Mr. Dong is in pari materia to that in the Wong matter, namely the alleged refusal of the MPP to intervene in respect of one or more of her ongoing grievances.
Analysis
4In the statement of claim before me, the plaintiff names 29 defendants including the Ontario Ombudsman, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. The statement of claim is 35 pages long. It is narrative in form and unintelligible in substance. The claim fails to establish a basis to sue any of the defendants.
5Ms. Lin continues to expand her parties and the relief sought by successive claims. Ultimately she continues to describe incidents of alleged of “harassment”, “sick judgment” and “misconduct” previously adjudicated to be both unsuitable and inappropriate in law.
6It is apparent on the face of the Statement of Claim and in Ms. Lin’s submissions that she has no legal basis to sue any of the defendants in this court.
7Ms. Lin’s repeated attempts to sue in this court are abusive and vexatious. Accordingly, this is an appropriate case for the use of the Rule 2.1 process. On its face the statement of claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
Disposition
8The action is therefore dismissed. The plaintiff shall pay the defendants their assessable costs, if any, forthwith after assessment.
9The court dispenses with any requirement for the plaintiff to approve the form or content of the formal order dismissing the action without costs.
10In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to send a copy of this endorsement to the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses.
V.R. Chiappetta J.
Date: February 10, 2017