Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 18-76243 DATE: 20180625 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ANTHONY HICKS, Plaintiff -and- GOODLIFE FITNESS CENTRES INC., THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR, and THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
HEARD: By requisition
Endorsement
[1] Two separate requisitions were referred to me by the Registrar’s Office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of written requests from the Defendant, Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. (“Goodlife”) and the Defendant, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”). The Plaintiff was copied with each of those requests and he filed an early response to the requisition filed by the HRTO.
[2] In reviewing the Statement of Claim, I determined that the claim against Goodlife appears, on its face, to be out of time; that the Defendant, Human Rights Tribunal Ontario (HRTO) is not a suitable entity and that the improperly named Ontario Ministry of Labour is being sued as a result of a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that similarly lacks the legal status and capacity to be sued for actions taken in the exercise of its functions.
[3] On May 28, 2018, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the Plaintiff by way of Form 2.1A that the Court was considering making an order under sub-rule 2.1.01 dismissing this action. The Plaintiff provided written submissions in compliance with rule 2.1 (3.2).
[4] In his written submissions dated June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff asks that this matter be allowed to proceed. He continues to make allegations against a non-party law firm, Borden Ladner Gervais and accuses it of “government corruption and shameless tactics to prevent its detection.” His written submissions fail to address the fatal defects in his claim. He has confused any right to have the decisions of the HRTO and the OLRB reviewed and attempts to sue these entities directly. He claims that the time limit against Goodlife has not expired due to the fact that this is a criminal case and that the time limit should be extended to five years. This is a civil action; the applicable limitation period has expired.
[5] After the delivery of those submissions, the Plaintiff then filed a requisition to have counsel for Goodlife removed from the matter since that counsel and the Defendants “are engaged in a conspiracy to cover up corruption.” The Plaintiff further asks that the Defendants pay his claim in full with legal fees.
The Law
[6] Rule 2.1 provides a summary process to determine whether claims are to be dismissed when the Statement of Claim appears, on its face to be frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process.
[7] In Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 81 C.P.C. (7th) 258 at para. 8, the Court of Appeal recognized that Rule 2.1 should be interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise its gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The Court cautioned, however, that the use of the Rule should be limited to the clearest of cases for 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.
[8] For my review of the pleading, and having read the further submissions of the Plaintiff, I am satisfied that the abusive nature of this Claim is clear on the face of the pleading and that recourse to the attenuated procedure under Rule 2.1 is appropriate. The Plaintiff’s claim is therefore dismissed.