Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 18-76957 DATE: 20180906 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: CHUANG MA, Plaintiff AND CITY OF OTTAWA, Defendant

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

[1] A requisition was 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 a written request from the Defendant. I reviewed the Statement of Claim in this matter.

[2] The Plaintiff seeks “5 million Canadian dollars (after tax)” from the Defendant City of Ottawa for its failure to prevent an unnamed person from placing his photograph, accompanied by accusations that he was a Chinese spy and a terrorist, on telephone poles in the City of Ottawa. The Plaintiff’s complains that his reputation was damaged by these accusations.

[3] I concluded that there are no allegations against the City of Ottawa nor are there any allegations which set out how the City of Ottawa could have prevented the actions of this unnamed person or how it could be responsible for the actions of others referred to in the Statement of Claim.

[4] Having concluded that this action appeared to be frivolous, is vexatious and an abuse of process, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the Plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under sub-rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action. I stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or until further order of the court.

[5] I have now received the Plaintiff’s submissions. At the outset, I note that the Plaintiff provides an address in Gatineau, Québec on both his Statement of Claim and on his Submissions to the court. It is unclear if he has ever been a resident of Ontario or a citizen in the city of Ottawa.

[6] I have read the Plaintiff’s submissions. The drafting demonstrates that the Plaintiff may have some difficulty with the English language and I have accordingly attempted to give his submissions as generous a reading as possible. At para. 3 he states:

3 The most basic duty of the government is to protect his people. The government protects citizens from each other by organizing police to enforce the law. However, in this case, the Defendant lost duty to do so in a place where is the jurisdiction under the Defendant.

[7] He then states at paras. 6 and 7:

6 It is very apparent that the Defendant allowed somebody slander three of us on the Ottawa Street is not an ethical and accountable manner to manage the city at all. Meanwhile it is not in a timely manner to respond that the criminal thing continuously happened until the RCMP arrested that guy even after reported to the Ottawa police first for many days early.

7 The Defendant should’ve known that telephone poles in the city of Ottawa are not the places for some people to put some bad things such as wards, photos or articles and so on to attack other people. So the defendant should have done something to avoid that happen because it is the duty of the Defendant since the Defendant manages this city.

[8] He concludes at para. 16:

16 In short, as a common knowledge, it is the duty of all the governments, and no matter it is federal government, provincial government or city government, that stop crime. So, the Defendant has a duty to stop the crime and protect me. But the Defendant lost the duty, so the Defendant should pay the price. Therefore, in order to get my citizen right and human right back and to be just in Canada, I hope that the court can let this action out of stay can go ahead for trial, thanks.

[9] It is apparent that the Plaintiff believes that the City of Ottawa has either breached some duty of care it owed to a non-citizen or that the City is somehow vicariously liable for the actions of the Ottawa Police Services, a separate legal entity. There is nothing in the Plaintiff’s submissions that addresses the core problem identified in my earlier Endorsement. The Plaintiff has failed to set out a tenable cause of action that he could have against the City of Ottawa. For that reason, this action is dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Date: September 6, 2018