Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-568772

DATE: 20180515

B E T W E E N:

Anita Alampur, Plaintiff

• and -

Avenel Non-Profit Housing Corporation, Defendant

BEFORE: J.F. Diamond J.

HEARD: May 15, 2018

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This action was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) submitted by the lawyers for the defendant Avenel Non-Profit Housing Corporation.

[2] In accordance with my Endorsement dated March 8, 2018, I allowed the plaintiff 60 days to deliver an amended pleading which would hopefully flesh out the material facts and particulars necessary to permit me to re-assess the merits of the defendant’s Rule 2.1 request. This proceeding had already been stayed pursuant to my earlier Endorsement dated February 2, 2018.

[3] On May 8, 2018, the plaintiff issued her Amended Statement of Claim, which I have now reviewed in detail. No other defendants have been added to the existing style of cause, although the contents of the amended claim raise numerous personal allegations against various individuals who at one time or another (as the alleged events date as far back as 2005) were either employed by or otherwise associated with the defendant.

[4] The original claim, which consisted of only a prayer for relief, sought undisclosed damages for “personal injuries, property damage/loss, economic /financial loss, defamation of character, workplace destruction, sexual harassment, breach of privacy and other serious types of tortious and intentional conduct.”

[5] The amended claim seeks general and special damages “in the maximum amount” without specifying any such amount. The amended claim also seeks reimbursement of numerous alleged expenses including “medical costs related to this claim”, “all money given to all parties involved in this claim to engage in criminal activity against the plaintiff”, “costs of the plaintiff to remove monitoring devices within the plaintiff’s private apartment” and “full lifetime payment of costs of an encrypted wired security alarm and surveillance camera system to be installed in the plaintiff’s private apartment.”

[6] The amended claim then proceeds to ask for numerous requests which are simply not available or recoverable at law, including “whistle blowing protection”, “assistance to aid in the investigation of all criminal activities against the plaintiff”, “the release of all friends, family members and others who are trapped against their will from being involved in the organized crime ring mentioned in this claim” and “shut down of all sex dens, massive group code attacks, media control, police corruption and terrorism.”

[7] After identifying herself through several lengthy paragraphs as a former professional dancer, choreographer and pioneer of progressive non-existent dance she claims to have invented in her youth, the plaintiff describes suffering catastrophic injuries in a 2001 motor vehicle accident and her subsequent dissatisfaction of a resulting legal proceeding against her insurer.

[8] Over the next 53 paragraphs, the plaintiff describes a series of alleged events (dating back to 2005 when she moved into an apartment operated by the defendant) during which she claims to have been “monitored” by numerous people including other tenants and the defendant’s staff. These “monitoring” efforts were allegedly carried out by private investigators, the use of needles, unlawful entry into her apartment, key fobs with built in cameras, videotaping, water as a form or harassment, coded messages, Satanic signs, internet messages, bus posters and the media.

[9] There is much force to the defendant’s position that the amended claim fails to contain any intelligible claims. It is prolix, containing an inordinate amount of irrelevant information that runs afoul of Rule 25.06. Most if not all of the facts relate to events which, even if they could support tenable causes of action, appear to have taken place outside the two year period set out in the Limitations Act 2002, S.O. 2002 c. 24. On its face, and taken as a whole, the amended pleading could qualify as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[10] However, at paragraphs 33 and 69 of the amended claim, the plaintiff describes that she was the victim of two separate sexual assaults. While it is unclear what precise role the defendant had in these alleged sexual assaults, reading the amended claim as liberally as possible it could be said that the defendant was “aware” of these incidents. This could mean that the defendant failed to prevent the alleged incidents from happening, was even involved in the incidents, or perhaps knew of the incidents and failed to take appropriate resulting steps.

[11] Should a Rule 2.1 request be declined when only a very small portion of a claim could amount to a tenable cause action, while at the same time the vast majority of the claim qualifies as vexatious and an abuse of process? While granting the Rule 2.1 request would appear to be an efficient use of the powers set out in that rule, the wording used by the drafters of Rule 2.1 involves the staying or dismissal of a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. Rule 2.1 does not refer to “causes of action” – such an assessment is reserved for Rule 20 and Rule 21 motions.

[12] Absent appellate authority, I am inclined to agree with the following comments of Justice Grace in Elguindy v. St. Joseph’s Health Care London 2017 ONSC 4247:

“However, it is clear from language used in rule 2.1.01 that the court has two options when faced with a request to dismiss a proceeding under this rule. It can grant the request and dismiss the proceeding or decline to do so.”

[13] For these reasons, the defendant’s Rule 2.1 request to dismiss this proceeding is dismissed. The defendant is free to proceed under Rule 20 or Rule 21 if it so chooses.

[14] There shall be no costs

Diamond J.

Released: May 15, 2018