Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00601664 DATE: 20181001 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: William Dale MacLeod et al., Applicant -and- Bank of Montreal et al., Respondents

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: October 1, 2018

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated September 17, 2018, reported at 2018 ONSC 5469, the court directed the registrar to provide notice to the applicants that the court was considering dismissing this application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, O. Reg 194. The applicants have delivered written submissions to explain why the application ought to be allowed to proceed.

[2] I described the application and the nature of the court’s concern in the prior endorsement as follows:

[3] In this application, Mr. MacLeod and his corporation seem to repeat a number of the claims that have already been dismissed. In addition, Mr. MacLeod takes issue with the appointment of the PG&T as his litigation guardian and, for a brief period, as his attorney for property. The gravamen of the application appears to be an effort of Mr. MacLeod to clarify which of his debts Mr. MacLeod is willing to pay, which he wishes to be assigned to his corporation, and, for a few, a request for clarification of the status of his indebtedness. Mr. MacLeod also raised concerns about the status of the board of directors of his corporation as a result of his having been declared incapable of managing his property for a period of time.

[4] I am unable to discern a legally recognized basis for Mr. MacLeod’s claims. To become entitled to sue, one must plead a set of facts that together make out what is called a “cause of action”. A cause of action is a legally recognized basis to sue, like the law of “negligence” or “breach of contract”. The relief claimed by Mr. MacLeod does not seem to me to fit any established cause of action.

[3] The applicants now explain that this application is intended to be a constitutional challenge to outdated legislation in each province and federally concerning legal capacity. They argue that existing legislation does not “represent an economic, social, and healthy society.” They advance a second argument that functionally current laws do not operate as they should. Mr. Macleod raises complaints concerning the process for determining a person’s legal capacity as well as reckless decisions of the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office to which he and others are exposed.

[4] None of these issues are raised at all in the application. The Constitution is not mentioned in the proceeding. The naming of a large number of private lenders as respondents has nothing to do with the constitutionality of legislation. Moreover, Mr. Macleod proposes to remove the provincial and federal governments as respondents in this proceeding. It is apparent that this application is not a vehicle for a constitutional challenge to any unnamed provincial or federal legislation.

[5] The applicants raise no other causes of action despite being specifically notified that their proceedings as drafted do not state any recognizable basis for a legal claim.

[6] This application is frivolous in the sense that it cannot succeed. Mr. Macleod’s continued commencement of numerous, repetitive legal proceedings against large numbers of people and businesses in respect of his efforts to avoid consumer debt and as a consequence of his period of incapacity are vexatious. Re Lang Michener et al. and Fabian et al. at pp. 5 and 6; Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497.

[7] Mr. MacLeod makes reference to a proceeding that he has commenced in Hamilton on his student debt. Forum shopping to avoid case management is also a sign of a vexatious litigant. Mr. MacLeod should understand that his continued bringing of frivolous and vexatious legal proceedings exposes him to the risk of being declared to be a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43.

[8] Mr. Macleod does not know how to prepare effective legal proceedings. Drafting and carrying lawsuits is a complex endeavour especially for people with no legal training. If Mr. Macleod believes that his legal rights have been violated and he wishes to enforce his legal rights in a court, he needs to obtain legal advice about how to bring legal proceedings. The Toronto law schools provide excellent free legal services. Downtown Legal Services at the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto can be reached at law.dls@utoronto.ca or 416 934-4535. Osgoode Hall Law School at York University also provides free legal services through Community & Legal Aid Services Programme (CLASP) that can be reached at (416) 736-5029.

[9] It is apparent on the face of the notice of application that this application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The pleading and the applicants’ submissions also bear hallmarks of proceedings to which Rule 2.1 is well suited. Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 8.

[10] Therefore, this application is dismissed.

[11] The applicants are jointly and severally liable and shall pay any assessable costs incurred by each respondent in a quantum fixed by an assessment officer should any respondent choose to proceed to a costs assessment.

[12] The court dispenses with any requirement for the applicants to approve the form or content of the formal order dismissing the application with costs.

[13] In 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 applicants and counsel for the respondents by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers Date: October 1, 2018