SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ANTHONY HICKS, Plaintiff
AND
2525274 Ontario Inc. o/a “Orangetheory Fitness” et al, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
HEARD: By requisition
ENDORSEMENT
Background
1A 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 written request from the Defendant, 2525274 Ontario Inc.
2This Plaintiff is known to the court. I have previously dismissed a Statement of Claim brought by the Plaintiff as appearing, on its face, to be frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process.1
3In his claim, the Plaintiff seeks damages for loss of income from June 12, 2018 until he secures alternative employment. He also seeks damages for breach of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 and associated mental distress in the amount of $60 million. He also seeks damages for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the amount of $5 million, and punitive damages in the amount of $10 million.
4It appears that the Plaintiff may have worked as a personal trainer at the Defendant Orangetheory Fitness’s Merivale Street location in the City of Ottawa. The Plaintiff states in his pleading that he commenced working for this Defendant in August, 2018. His Statement of Claim, however, was issued on August 1, 2018.
Analysis
5The problems with the pleadings become immediately apparent at paras. 8 and 9 of the Statement of Claim where the Plaintiff alleges breaches of the Human Rights Code. In that paragraph he alleges:
Mr. Hicks became aware of an organized plan by Orangetheory Fitness to use him as a way to uncover a story about corruption in the Canadian government which has ties to international and domestic terrorism and is connected to the National Missing and Murdered Indigenous Inquiry in Canada.
On July 17, 2014, Mr. Hicks sent a story idea to an email address provided by CNN for story ideas.
6There is a further reference to CNN in paras. 67, 72 and 78 of the Statement of Claim, but there is otherwise no discernible claim against that Defendant. In his pleading, he also makes reference to his claim against Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. which claim has been previously dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1. In a further reference to that claim, he states at paras. 11, 12 and 13:
Mr. Hicks manager Colin Twigley was a member of KKK (Siskinds LLP) which is based out of London Ontario. Conspired with Borden Ladner Gervaise LLP (Nazi) to kill Mr. Hicks to silence him.
Mr. Hicks discovered some of his clients and employer were engaged in a plot to kill him.
Me. Hicks through civil litigation discovered these law firms Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and Siskinds LLP were using stolen money from the government agencies such as DND Procurement where front companies are being used to launder money and purchase whatever with no oversight due to document destruction and corruption.
7The pleading goes on for a further 68 paragraphs. It is replete with allegations of corruption going all the way up to the Prime Minister’s office and the Attorney General of Ontario, Québec and Canada. There are claims of stalking and civil harassment by the Ottawa Police and conspiracies led by law firms involving judges, political appointees and others in an attempt to silence him. These include references to white supremacist gangs and cover-ups by the RCMP.
8As for his claim against Orangetheory Fitness, there is a reference to the termination of his employment and he alleges at para. 34:
- My employment was a scheme to silence me and get me to kill myself like so many aboriginal people have done throughout Canada.
9At para. 61, he maintains that his constructive dismissal is related to a murder that is somehow linked to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Inquiry. He refers to himself as a whistle blower.
10The allegations in the pleading are outrageous and have no chance of success. They clearly indicate the presence of significant mental health problems. The Plaintiff himself makes reference to his mental health issues throughout his claim.
11I adopt the reasoning of Myers, J. in Shafirovitch v The Scarborough Hospital, 2015 ONSC 7627, 85 C.P.C. (7th) 149, where he held at para. 3:
3 Rule 2.1 provides a mechanism to weed out the clearest cases of abuse quickly and affordably. Rule 2.1.01(3) provides that “Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under subrule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions.” Litigants are held to written submissions in order to prevent apparently vexatious litigants from abusing the processes for submitting evidence and making oral argument. In written submissions plaintiffs are able to explain to the court the gravamen of their complaint so a judge can try to discern whether the matter is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process and whether the plaintiff appears to be one who would conduct the ordinary processes abusively. However, in the truly exceptional case … there is no purpose in seeking written submissions. While there is perhaps a salutary effect to allow the litigant an opportunity to be heard, is it not disingenuous and paternalistic to invite submissions that cannot make a difference just to create an appearance of a hearing that in reality will not matter? It is not that I relish the idea of pre-judging the outcome. However, realistically, there is nothing that the plaintiff can say that could lead to this matter being allowed to proceed.
12I conclude that there is no purpose in seeking written submissions. There is nothing this Plaintiff can say that could allow this matter to proceed. This proceeding is frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process of the court.
Disposition
13The action is dismissed without costs. I dispense with the Plaintiff’s approval of the formal order as to form and content. The Registrar shall send a copy of this Endorsement and shall serve the formal order on the plaintiff at the address on the back sheet of the Statement of Claim. The Registrar shall send a copy of this Endorsement to counsel for the Defendant by email.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: September 7, 2018
COURT FILE NO.: 18-77333
DATE: 20180907
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: ANTHONY HICKS, Plaintiff
AND
2525274 Ontario Inc. o/a “Orangetheory Fitness” et al, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: September 7, 2018
Footnotes
- Hicks v. Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc., 2018 ONSC 3858