MOTION HEARD: In Writing REASONS RELEASED: 20181009 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

COURT FILE NO.: 17-63053 TIMOTHY C E KEIZER Plaintiff

• and-

THE QUEEN, AND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND CHCH NEWS BROADCASTING CORPORATION, AND; THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR NEWS PUBLISHING CORPORATION Defendants

COURT FILE NO.: 17-63054 TIMOTHY C E KEIZER Plaintiff

-and-

THE QUEEN, AND THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AND, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE SERVICE AND, HAMILTON POLICE SERVICE AND, HALTON POLICE SERVICE AND, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES AND, THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION OF ONTARIO Defendants

COURT FILE NO.: 17-63055 TIMOTHY C E KEIZER Plaintiff

-and-

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND; ST. JOSEPH’S HEALTHCARE FACILITY AND; DOCTOR OBULUKOLA FOLAYEMI KOLAWOLE, AND; DOCTOR JOSEPHN FERENCZ AND; WAYPOINT HEALTHCARE FACILITY AND; DOCTOR WILLIAM KOMER AND; DOCTOR ARTHUR KEITH AND; DOCTOR DANYLUK AND; OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN TRUSTEE

BEFORE: MASTER M.P. McGRAW

COUNSEL: Timothy C E Keizer, Plaintiff, Self-Represented Andrea Bolieiro Email : andrea.bolieiro@ontario.ca -for the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (“Ontario”) Grant Brailsford Email: grant.brailsford@hamilton.ca -for the Defendant Hamilton Police Services Board (“HPS”) Kenneth Kelertas Email: ken.kelertas@haltonpolice.ca -for the Defendant Halton Regional Police Service (“HRP”)

REASONS RELEASED: October 9, 2018

Reasons for Endorsement

I. Introduction

[1] As set out in my Endorsement dated June 6, 2018 (the “June Endorsement”), this motion in writing was referred to me by the Registrar pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The Registrar received written requests from the Defendants Ontario, HPS and HRP (collectively, the “Defendants”) under Rule 2.1.01(6) seeking a determination in writing and an interim stay under Rule 2.1.01(1) on the basis that these 3 actions (the “Actions”) are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[2] Pursuant to the June Endorsement, I concluded that, on their face, the Actions raise legitimate concerns that these proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or are an abuse of the court’s process. I ordered as follows:

i.) pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the Registrar is directed to give notice to the Plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the Court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing or staying the Actions;

ii.) pending the disposition of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the Court, the Actions are stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario);

iii.) the Registrar shall not accept any further filings in the Actions with the exception of the Plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3)(2) such that Plaintiff, within 15 days after receiving the notice from the Registrar, may file with the Court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the Registrar’s notice;

iv.) in addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the Registrar shall serve a copy of this Endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the Plaintiff and counsel for Ontario, HPS and HRP by email, if available.

[3] On June 19, 2018, Mr. Keizer was provided with a Notice That Proceedings May Be Stayed Or Dismissed. In accordance with Rule 2.1(3), Mr. Keizer filed written submissions dated June 20, 2018 (the “Plaintiff’s Submissions”). Pursuant to my direction dated June 21, 2018, the Registrar provided the Plaintiff’s Submissions to the Defendants.

[4] Ontario and HPS both filed responding written submissions dated July 3, 2018. HRP advised by letter dated July 11, 2018 that it adopts and endorses in full the submissions of Ontario and HPS. The Defendants request that the Actions be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

II. The Parties and the Action

[5] The Plaintiff, Timothy CE Keizer is an individual residing in Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Keizer commenced the Actions by separate Statements of Claim issued on October 5, 2017 (the “Statements of Claim”). Ontario is a Defendant in all three Actions while HPS and HRP are only named in one.

[6] The Actions arise from events occurring over the last 20 years related to Mr. Keizer’s interactions with the police, the courts, medical and mental health professionals and facilities, social services agencies and the media. These include multiple arrests, criminal charges and convictions under the Criminal Code (Canada), and proceedings and other steps under the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario) and the Mental Health Act (Ontario).

[7] It is difficult reading the Statements of Claim to determine the facts, the parties and the relief sought from each. The task is made more challenging by the length and tone of Mr. Keizer’s wide ranging commentary, the overlapping nature of his allegations and relief sought. This includes allegations of unlawful detention, wrongful arrest, forced confinement and anti-psychotic drug treatments, cruel and unusual punishment and torture of Mr. Keizer, attempted murder (including 5 attempts on his life) and the premeditated murder and wrongful death of his mother.

[8] The following is a brief overview of each Action:

i.) Court File No. 17-63053 (“Action 1”) : Mr. Keizer alleges that the defendants CHCH News Broadcasting Corporation and The Hamilton Spectator News Publishing Corporation breached various Charter rights by covering up the misconduct of Ontario and the Office of the Attorney General. Mr. Keizer seeks punitive damages of $1,000 per day since he suffered “loss of liberty” and $1,750 per day since he lost normal sleep from on or around September 26, 2011 as a result of exposure to sleep deprivation and the negative effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and “punitive damages” of $250,000,000 for pain and suffering. The Plaintiff also seeks to compel these two media outlets to make public “the wrongdoings of the defendants and their accomplices”;

ii.) Court File No. 17-63054 (“Action 2”) : Mr. Keizer alleges that the Defendants together with the Ontario Province Police (the “OPP”), the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) breached his Charter rights by falsely accusing, arresting and detaining him on numerous occasions. Mr. Keizer claims punitive damages from the Ontario Minister of the Attorney General of $1,000 per day since the Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty or his rights were infringed or denied and $1,750 per day for lost wages from on or around December 17, 1999 and the commencement of “cruel and unusual treatment” and $500,000,000 in punitive damages for loss of property and wages. The Plaintiff also seeks an order prohibiting all police services in Ontario from harassing him and his family and that all government organizations cease and desist “causing the plaintiff to suffer any manner of physical or psychological torture”.

iii.) Court File No. 17-63055 (“Action 3”) : Mr. Keizer alleges that Ontario, the Office of the Attorney General, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Facility, the Office of the Public Guardian Trustee and numerous doctors breached his Charter rights by fabricating a finding of mental illness and arbitrarily detaining him without basis. Mr. Keizer claims punitive damages of $1,000 per day since the Plaintiff “suffered loss of liberty” and $1,750 per day since the Plaintiff lost normal sleep from on or around September 26, 2011 as a result of exposure to sleep deprivation and punitive damages of $50,000,000 for pain and suffering. Mr. Keizer also seeks an apology in writing from St. Joseph’s Healthcare Facility and Waypoint Centre for Mental Healthcare Facility for “the cruelty endured and for the wrongful diagnosis the drugs’ (sic) forced upon and arbitrary detention of the plaintiff.”

[9] Further confusion is created by the Solemn Declaration document which Mr. Keizer has attached to each Statement of Claim. In the Solemn Declaration, Mr. Keizer appears to seek many of the same damages claimed in his Statements of Claim, claiming “loss of property and wages and punitive damages of the combined amount totaling $800,000,000 as a harsh message for pain and suffering”. All of this this is further complicated by the fact that in the Plaintiff’s Submissions, Mr. Keizer appears to have identified additional claims and allegations which he wishes to assert.

[10] The starting point for the Actions is October 17, 1998 when Mr. Keizer was charged with driving while impaired by the OPP He was acquitted on or about December 17, 1999. Mr. Keizer alleges that the OPP wrongfully charged him and the MTO wrongfully maintained an Administrative Driver’s License Suspension (“ADLS”) on his truck driver’s license file after his acquittal.

[11] Mr. Keizer alleges that his impaired driving charge and the ADLS initiated a chain of events which, directly and/or indirectly, caused the following: the cancellation of his automobile insurance; the receipt of numerous parking tickets because he could not move his truck; his mother’s fatal heart attack as a result of police harassment of him which he alleges constitutes murder; his dismissal from numerous jobs; being forced to take jobs with dangerous conditions; job related injuries; the cancellation and suspension of his license as a result of fines; and the impounding of his car for driving without a license; the denial of social assistance benefits and housing; numerous unlawful detainments and forced antipsychotic drug treatment on the basis that he was mentally ill; his injuries as a passenger in a motor vehicle accident because he was forced by his license suspension to get rides; the handling of various police complaints; and the fact that bricks fell from a hotel onto a bus stop he was required to frequent creating a harmful and potentially fatal situation.

[12] Mr. Keizer further alleges that he was wrongfully arrested, charged and/or detained on 4 subsequent occasions:

i.) December 27, 2007 when he was detained at Oakville Trafalgar Hospital for 8 days and administered “chemical restraint” for uttering a threat;

ii.) July 2, 2008 when he was charged with uttering a threat, spoke out at his bail hearing and was imprisoned for 2 months until he signed a peace bond allegedly under duress;

iii.) September 21, 2010 when he was arrested, detained and released on bail by HRP for uttering threats. As set out in R v. Keizer, 2014 ONSC 4876, Mr. Keizer was convicted in 2012 for uttering a threat and found not criminally responsible, however, Miller J. granted Mr. Keizer’s appeal and entered an acquittal;

iv.) June 10, 2012 when he was arrested and charged with failing to comply with recognizance;

v.) December 10, 2013 when he was transferred to Oakridge Healthcare Facility in Penetanguishene, Ontario where he received forced antipsychotic treatments for several months, followed by his transfer to St. Joseph’s Healthcare Facility on October 30, 2016 until his release and absolute discharge on March 2, 2017.

[13] On January 30, 2018, Mr. Keizer brought ex parte motions in Action 1 and Action 2 to “make public the fact that the Defendants are being sued” and “have my AZ truck drivers (sic) license returned. To cease and decist (sic) all forms of harassment. To amend my Statements of Claim” (the “Motions”). By Endorsement dated February 20, 2018, Reid J. ordered Mr. Keizer to amend his Notices of Motion to identify changes in the parties; file affidavits in support of the Motions; serve all responding parties or others that may be affected by the Motions with Notices of Motion and any affidavits; and extended the time for service of the Statements of Claim by 90 days.

[14] On May 8, 2018, Mr. Keizer filed some unsworn Affidavits of Service. Ontario, HPS and HRP claim that they have not been served with issued Statements of Claim or any of Mr. Keizer’s motion materials. It remains unclear from the record whether proper service has been effected on any of the defendants to the Actions.

[15] More recently, pursuant to the Reasons for Judgment of Schreck J. dated July 18, 2018, Mr. Keizer successfully appealed the decision of the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”) in which the CCB upheld the finding of Dr. Satyadev Nagari that Mr. Keizer was incapable of consenting to treatment on the basis that he suffered from delusional disorder and required anti-psychotic medication (Keizer v. Nagari, 2018 ONSC 4424). Further background regarding some of the claims made by Mr. Keizer in the Actions is set out in Nagari.

III. The Law and Analysis

Generally

[16] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:

(1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

(2) The court may make a determination under subrule (1) in a summary manner, subject to the procedures set out in this rule.

(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under subrule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures:

1. The court shall direct the registrar to give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, that the court is considering making the order.

2. The plaintiff or applicant may, within 15 days after receiving the notice, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the notice.

3. If the plaintiff or applicant does not file a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may make the order without any further notice to the plaintiff or applicant or to any other party.

4. If the plaintiff or applicant files a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may direct the registrar to give a copy of the submission to any other party.

5. A party who receives a copy of the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission may, within 10 days after receiving the copy, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission, and shall give a copy of the responding submission to the plaintiff or applicant and, on the request of any other party, to that party.

(4) A document required under subrule (3) to be given to a party shall be mailed in the manner described in subclause 16.01 (4) (b) (i), and is deemed to have been received on the fifth day after it is mailed.

(5) The registrar shall serve a copy of the order by mail on the plaintiff or applicant as soon as possible after the order is made.

(6) Any party to the proceeding may file with the registrar a written request for an order under subrule (1).

(7) If the registrar becomes aware that a proceeding could be the subject of an order under subrule (1), the registrar shall notify the court.

[17] Myers J. summarized the law with respect to Rule 2.1 in Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100 (“Gao 1”):

“6 Rule 2.1 is a statutory response to a significant and longstanding problem. Vexatious proceedings can cause very substantial costs to be incurred by responding parties. They also cause inefficient and inappropriate utilization of court resources. Knights Village Non-Profit Homes Inc. v. Chartier, [2006] O.J. No. 4436 at para. 16.

7 The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that ensuring access to justice is the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada today. Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, at para. 1. The Supreme Court determined that the goal of providing fair and just processes for resolving civil disputes efficiently, affordably and proportionately requires a "culture shift", i.e. new ways of thinking about handling civil matters. Rule 2.1 provides a new approach to managing potentially frivolous and vexatious proceedings.

9 Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the "culture shift" mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The new rule tailors appropriate procedural fairness for the category of cases involved and is an example of early resolution of civil cases that is very much in line with the goals set out in Hryniak.” (Gao 1 at paras. 6-7; Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733).”

[18] Frivolous and vexatious actions can be defined as lacking a legal basis or legal merit or commenced without reasonable grounds (Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497 (“Gao 2”) at para. 16).

[19] Certain factors or signs may assist in determining whether an action is a bona fide civil dispute or the product of vexatiousness. These characteristics include rambling discourse characterized by repetition and pedantic failure to clarify, multiple proceedings involving the same issues, inappropriately ingratiating statements, repeated misuse of legal and technical terms and ultimatums (Van Sluytman v. Canada (Department of Justice), 2017 ONSC 481 (“Van Sluytman-Canada”) at para. 6; Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692 (“Orillia”) at paras. 9-11), Van Sluytman-Canada and Orillia aff’d at Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, 2018 ONCA 32 (“Van Sluytman Appeal”); application for leave to appeal to S.C.C. filed March 14, 2018, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 206; Van Sluytman v. Brewster, 2017 ONSC 1957 (“Brewster”) at paras. 9-12; Gao 2 at paras. 15-16).

[20] It is not uncommon for a vexatious litigant’s case to contain a legitimate complaint and a real issue; however, the problem is often that the litigant either cannot properly communicate the concern or cannot accept that the law may not provide the remedy sought despite the unfairness felt by the litigant (Gao 2 at para. 18). Grandiose claims, including claims for damages, usually in the millions, and relief that no reasonable person would expect to obtain are further evidence of frivolous and vexatious claims (Van Slutyman-Canada at para. 11; Van Sluytman Appeal at para. 9). Actions that have no possibility of proceeding to a successful conclusion or fail to advance any justiciable cause of action are also a hallmark of frivolous and vexatious proceedings and an abuse of the process of the court (Van Sluytman-Canada at para. 15; Orillia at para. 16; Van Sluytman Appeal at para. 8).

[21] A claim that, on its face, it clearly outside the applicable limitation period and barred by the Limitations Act, 2002 (Ontario) may, on its own, mean that the action has no chance of proceeding or no chance of success (Van Sluytman-Canada at para. 14; Orillia at para. 13; Brewster at paras 14-15). However, as with any claim which engages a limitation period, the discoverability factors may be applicable which are a matter of evidence (Brewster at paras. 14-20; Salman v. Patey, 2015 ONSC 2727 at para. 4).

[22] In upholding the application judges’ decisions in Van Sluytman Appeal, the Court of Appeal stated:

“8 We do not accept the appellant's contention that the application judges erred in dismissing his actions due to deficiencies in his pleadings. Having considered the appellant's pleadings in the relevant proceedings, we agree with the application judges that they fall far short of meeting the pleadings requirements applicable to all litigants. Further, they fail to advance any justiciable cause of action.

9 Simply put, the proceedings in question are facially frivolous and vexatious. The appellant's pleadings fail to contain any coherent narrative or a concise statement of the material facts in support of the wrongs sought to be alleged. Instead, they contain rambling discourse, impermissible attachments, grandiose complaints of injury and damages claims, and bald assertions that repeat similar, if not identical, allegations detailed in multiple other proceedings commenced by the appellant. On this ground alone, it was open to the application judges to dismiss the appellant's actions under R. 2.1.01(1).

11 We also reject any suggestion that the deficiencies in the appellant's pleadings could be cured by appropriate amendments. The record indicates that, in cases where the court provided the appellant with an opportunity to amend his pleadings in an effort to remedy their clear deficiencies, he failed to do so.”

[23] In the June Endorsement, I identified some of the characteristics of frivolous and vexatious proceedings which are reflected in the Statements of Claim including: the Plaintiff’s commencement of multiple proceedings based on many of the same facts and issues and seeking some of the same relief; grandiose claims including excessive damages; rambling commentary with repetition, failure to clarify the parties, the relief sought and from which parties and the misuse of legal and other terms. While Mr. Keizer has made a concerted effort to address most of these characteristics and deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s Submissions, it is unclear to what extent Mr. Keizer has provided clarification or added more confusion to what is already set out in the Statements of Claim and the Solemn Declaration.

[24] In considering the Statements of Claim and this motion, I have taken into consideration the fact that Mr. Keizer is self-represented and have applied the standard adopted by J. DiLuca J. in Orillia and Brewster:

“…I am not holding his statement of claim and motion material to the standard regularly expected with material prepared by counsel. More importantly, I have attempted to read past the bad drafting to assess whether the claim reveals anything that could possibly be a genuine cause of action.” (Orillia at para. 12)

[25] In my view, this is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s endorsement of the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council (Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23 at para. 4). It is also consistent with the Court of Appeal’s confirmation of the court’s duty to accommodate a self-represented litigant’s unfamiliarity with the litigation process in a reasonable and practical manner to enable them to present their case to the best of their ability (Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566 at paras. 35 and 37).

[26] However, in adopting this approach, I am also mindful of the Court of Appeal’s direction that all litigants are required to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure including with respect to the permissible contents of pleadings (Van Sluytman Appeal at para. 10).

Multiple Proceedings, the Solemn Declaration and New Claims

[27] In the Plaintiff’s Submissions, Mr. Keizer explains why he commenced three separate actions:

“The reason why I have commenced multiple proceedings, is due to my belief that the causes for action differ slightly, as for example, the defendants of court file 17-63053, allegedly covered-up the events, which I claim were perpetrated, by the defendants of Court File 17-63054. Concerning the defendants of Court File 17-63055, I have alleged that they had deliberately, clouded the issues. They had claimed my allegations were the product of a persecutory delusion, thus, having my right to make full answer and defence denied, and causing me to be arbitrarily detained, for approximately five years, by making the false claim, that I was a threat to the safety of the public, over an alleged crime, that had never occurred.”

[28] In short, Mr. Keizer’s intention is that Action 2 covers claims against the Defendants and others for the underlying alleged misconduct, Action 1 is for the alleged “cover-up” by the media and others and Action 3 is against those such as mental health professionals and institutions which he alleges, among other things, wrongfully detained him and prevented him from defending himself. However, the Statements of Claim do not support Mr. Keizer’s intended division of his claims, particularly with respect to the parties named in each and the relief claimed.

[29] The fact that Mr. Keizer has commenced 3 separate actions does not, on its own, lead to the conclusion that the Actions are frivolous and vexatious. However, given his overlapping claims, facts and allegations and confusion regarding the identity of the defendants and the claims against each, it supports such a finding. Generally, it is not apparent that three separate actions are necessary.

[30] The attachment of the Solemn Declaration to each Statement of Claim further characterizes the Actions as frivolous and vexatious. The Solemn Declaration is an odd and impermissible attachment which is contrary to the Rules, the purpose of which is unclear, other than to repeat many of Mr. Keizer’s claims.

[31] As set out below, Mr. Keizer also purports to advance new claims in the Plaintiff’s Submissions, not in a properly amended pleading as required by the Rules.

Grandiose Claims and Damage Claims With No Possibility of Success

[32] Among the claims advanced by Mr. Keizer are the following:

i.) referring to the death of his mother: “the first allegation of driving over the legal limit of .80 caused the plaintiff a wrongful death within his immediate family, and the plaintiff believes this constitutes pre-mediated murder” (Action 2, para. 2);

ii.) “on or around June 28 2000 I believe due to this harassment and knowing these criminals were breaking the law, my mother suffered a heart attack and later on June 28 2000 suffered a fatal heart attack, caused by the fear of what they may or may not do next…” (Solemn Declaration, para. 8);

iii.) that the Defendants, and their co-defendants in Action 2, put him “in immediate danger of an internal haemorrhage, which could have easily become fatal” by “exposing his peptic (duodenal) ulcer (on many occasions) to days of hunger with no end in sight” adding “the plaintiff believes this and other facts constitutes several counts of attempted murder” (Action 2, para. 3);

iv.) that the anti-psychotic medication forced on him “could have brought sudden death to the plaintiff as all medications are known to have the potential to cause” (Action 3, para. 21);

v.) that the media failed to investigate his allegations causing him to “suffer undue hardships”, keeping the public “in the dark in order to avoid a public outcry of the illegal on goings that were being perpetrated in order to cause what the plaintiff believes to be the plaintiff’s death. This activity makes the defendants accessories after the fact” (Action 1, para. 2);

vi.) the fact that he “was forced to work in disgusting and dangerous environment, or starve” because he had to take a labour job constitutes a breach of various provisions of the Criminal Code and the Charter (Solemn Declaration, para. 18);

vii.) the fact that he was fined and had his car impounded because he was forced to drive to and from work “with no insurance and without a proper safety inspection and improper plates, due to the ADLS notation on my drivers abstract prior, rendering me without the necessary funds to legalize the vehicle. It was a situation of work or starve” was a breach of various provisions of the Criminal Code and the Charter (Solemn Declaration, para. 34);

viii.) that working at a job where he was forced to quit as a result of sleep deprivation and “after almost being killed, by being obliged to operate a machine I had little knowledge about, in order to help the company keep the contract”; having to get rides to work with an unsafe an drunk driver; the falling of bricks near a bus stop he frequented on a day he was not there; and working with unsafe materials and equipment are all breaches of the Criminal Code and the Charter (Solemn Declaration, paras.19, 40, 43, 44).

[33] In the Plaintiff’s Submissions, Mr. Keizer appears to be trying to advance additional claims not currently contained in the Statements of Claim. These include claims for attempted murder, cruel and unusual punishment and torture for being denied Ontario Works benefits without the offer of a tribunal or internal review process for 90 days in two instances once during a time when his brother died causing him to ensure stress equivalent to losing 13 family members according to a stress level chart; pre-meditated attempted murder with malice for re-feeding syndrome because when a person has endured 5 consecutive days without eating and then re-feeds, “a dangerous and life threatening situation may occur and easily cause death”.

[34] At a minimum, Mr. Keizer is claiming total damages of $800,000,000 in the Actions. However, as set out above, he is also claiming punitive damages in per diem amounts of $1,000 and $1,750 for various periods in each Action. Given his reference to the amount of $800,000,000 in the Solemn Declaration it is not clear if these per diem amounts are subsumed within the total punitive damage amount of $800,000,000 or additional amounts. To the extent to which the per diem amounts are additional amounts, then the aggregate amount claimed by Mr. Keizer may exceed $1,000,000,000.

[35] In the Plaintiff’s Submissions, Mr. Keizer provides some explanation for the relief he is claiming:

i.) Action 1 – “I have accused the the media, in Court File 17-63053, had covered-up the matters(s). I believe they would be held to account and receive at least half of the punishment, which the Defendants of Court File 17-63054 would receive.”

ii.) Action 2 – “…there is a claim for wrongful death alleged. I have seen wrongful death suits on mainstream media, that have been filed for $100 million, in Canada. My mother is worth that much to me. I have alleged that five attempts were made on my life, by means that I believe will be once proven, to be considered heinous, I believe my life is worth the same to my loved ones as my mother’s life was to me; However, I have claimed less than $100 million, for each alleged attempt thereof…..I also want to send a strong message to all of the defendants that they are not above the law.”

iii.) Action 3 - “I have alleged that these defendants have fabricated a case against me, obstructed justice, and had an innocent man, myself, arbitrarily detained for the better part of 5 years and treated with antipsychotics. I am not only innocent, but I have claimed to be the victim of likely the most objectionable and surreptitiously orchestrated atrocity, most likely ever to have been alleged in this country. I believe the court would agree, once proven, this is an extremely reprehensible scandal. I am alleging that the defendants of Court File 17-63055 committed what I would describe as kicking a man when he is down. However, the $50 million, which I am seeking in relief, will send a strong message to the defendants of Court File 17-63055, that this type of crime and rights infringement, will not be taken lightly.”

[36] In Action 3, Mr. Keizer more reasonably seeks, albeit as interim relief, an apology in writing from St. Joseph’s Health Facility and Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care Facility.

[37] In my view, Mr. Keizer’s grandiose claims of alleged wrongdoing, misconduct and for damages of at least $800,000,000 are the most significant and apparent characteristics that the Actions are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process. I conclude that no reasonable person would expect to be awarded damages for much of alleged conduct which Mr. Keizer complains of and it is apparent on the face of the Statements of Claim that many of his claims have no possibility of success or reveal no genuine cause of action. To the extent to which it could be considered reasonable to expect damages for some of Mr. Keizer’s claims, a reasonable person would not expect to recover the quantum of damages claimed by Mr. Keizer.

[38] Among the many issues with Mr. Keizer’s claims, one of the most glaring is his attribution of indirect events and chains of multiple events back to his impaired driving charge and the ADLS. On their face, it appears that many of his claims are not actionable and have no possibility of success, including the numerous claims for “attempts on his life” or “murder”. Many of these and other of Mr. Keizer’s claims reveal no cause or action and/or suffer from significant remoteness and causation issues. Mr. Keizer’s repeated use of criminal law terms and the grounding of substantially all of his claims on the basis of the Criminal Code and the Charter further undermine the validity and potential success of the Actions.

[39] Mr. Keizer submits in the first paragraph of the Plaintiff’s Submissions that the Actions have merit:

“My cases do have merit, according to Justice Reid J, at the John Sopinka Courthouse. My cases do not loack a legal basis and were not commenced, without legal grounds, as demonstrated below. The affidavit of documents that I have submitted with my motion material and fact, should prove that, or at the very least, arouse enough suspicion for an inquiry of some kind, which the conclusion of, would determine the legitimacy of my claims.”

[40] As discussed below, there may be genuine, actionable claims obscured within the Actions. However, even where potentially valid claims are identifiable, it is difficult to determine with any precision the particulars of each.

Rambling Discourse, Ingratiating Statements and Drafting Deficiencies

[41] As reflected in the excerpts from his Statements of Claim, Mr. Keizer’s pleadings are characterized by rambling discourse laden with hyperbole, overstatement, inappropriately ingratiating statements, ultimatums and many drafting deficiencies. The Solemn Declaration and the Plaintiff’s Submissions bear similar characteristics.

[42] While Mr. Keizer has attempted to follow the proper format for his pleadings, his Statements of Claim are essentially extended rambling diatribes of allegations and complaints against multiple parties. In addition to referring to some defendants as “criminals” and “accessories”, he characterizes some of their conduct as “murder”, “attempted murder” “premeditated murder” and “criminal acts”.

[43] Similar overstatement is reflected in the Plaintiff’s Submissions where he states: “I am not only innocent, but I have claimed to be the victim of likely the most objectionable and surreptitiously orchestrated atrocity, most likely ever to have been alleged in this country.” He also claims that he is “still being slowly put to death by a combination of stress, poverty and the effects of untreated PTSD” and that his death “remains imminent”, adding that “my mother was murdered and 5 consecutive attempts were made on my life!”.

[44] In addition, Mr. Keizer submits in the Plaintiff’s Submissions that this Court, on this motion, after what he perceived as favourable comments from Reid J. on the Motions, “is suddenly duped, by this unjust claim of my civil matters being vexatious”. Further, after identifying what he says are inaccuracies in the June Endorsement Mr. Keizer demands that this Court “please get the facts straight before making any assumptions or decisions”.

[45] In my view, the rambling discourse, hyperbole, inappropriately ingratiating statements, ultimatums and drafting deficiencies are all further indicators that the Actions are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Limitations Act

[46] Mr. Keizer commenced the Actions on October 5, 2017. On the face of the Statements of Claim, most of the events underlying Mr. Keizer’s claims occurred prior to October 5, 2015, suggesting that most of his claims may be barred by operation of the Limitations Act (Ontario), subject to a consideration of discoverability.

[47] The Court of Appeal recently summarized the law with respect to discoverability and due diligence in Har Jo Management Services Canada Ltd. v. York (Regional Municipality), 2018 ONCA 469 at paragraph 42:

“A claim is discovered on the earlier of two dates: when the plaintiff actually knew of its claim, or when a reasonable person, with the plaintiff's abilities and in its circumstances, would have discovered the claim. If a plaintiff fails to exercise the diligence a reasonable person would, the claim is potentially discoverable earlier than the date the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the claim.”

[48] Section 5(2) of the Limitations Act creates a presumption that a person had actual knowledge of its claim on the day the acts or omissions took place under s. 5(1)(a), however this presumption does not apply to the inquiry under s.5(1)(b) which asks when the claim ought reasonably to have been discovered (Har Jo at para. 39).

[49] It may be the case that most of Mr. Keizer’s claims are barred by the Limitations Act with the possible exception of claims related to his detentions and transfers in 2016 and 2017. However, it is not clear from the Statements of Claim and the Plaintiff’s Submissions what effect, if any, Mr. Keizer’s detentions and drug therapy may have on the application of the relevant discoverability factors. While the potential barring of Mr. Keizer’s claims is a legitimate issue, I conclude that it is a less significant factor than the other characteristics of a frivolous and vexatious claim identified above.

Conclusion and Appropriate Remedy

[50] Based on my consideration of all of the factors and circumstances set out above, on a generous reading providing a wide allowance for drafting deficiencies, and applying the appropriate standard to a self-represented litigant, I conclude that the Actions are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process. However, this finding does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the Actions should be dismissed at this time. As set out in Rule 2.1.01(1), it is open to the court to either continue to stay or dismiss the Actions. Therefore, I now turn to the appropriate remedy.

[51] In considering whether to continue the stay or dismiss the Actions, the relevant question is if Mr. Keizer should be provided with an opportunity to amend his Statements of Claim in order to remedy the many deficiencies. This engages competing access to justice interests, specifically, the obligation to accommodate self-represented litigants like Mr. Keizer in a reasonable and practical manner to permit him to present his case to the best of his abilities given his unfamiliarity with the litigation process versus freeing up and avoiding the use of scarce court resources for frivolous and vexatious proceedings. This also requires a consideration of the interests of the Defendants (and all defendants to the Actions) in avoiding unrecoverable costs in defending such proceedings.

[52] In Van Sluytman Appeal, the Court of Appeal denied the appellant’s appeal in part on the basis that the plaintiff had been provided with opportunities to amend his pleadings in order to remedy the deficiencies and had failed to do so. In this regard, Mr. Keizer’s case is distinguishable from Van Sluytman Appeal and other cases cited above.

[53] In the Plaintiff’s Submissions, Mr. Keizer acknowledges that there are deficiencies in the Statements of Claim and that the Motions were, at least in part, an an attempt to address them:

“As far as my statement of claim containing rambling discourse with repetition goes, I apologize if that seems to be the case, if I have repeated anything, it may be due to its importance, and my ensuring that it was not left out. To me, including a fact is more important, than mistakenly stressing it multiple times. Concerning a failure to clarify the parties. I realize I have made mistakes, which is why I have attempted to motion the court to make amendments. Quite possibly, I have made more mistakes than I am aware. Being an alleged victim of multiple ongoing and lengthy ordeals I believe this would cause the victim, to attempt to demonstrate the most important facts as they come to mind, as to not leave out the significant details. I believe a court of competent jurisdiction would agree with this fact. Please, do not let a few unqualified mistakes, be an unjustifiable excuse, to dismiss sincere claims that are very much worthy of this courts (sic) consideration.”

“However, I am not a civil lawyer; I do not even have a high school diploma. Yet I have seen the justice system make many serious mistakes, which caused the loss of my freedom, for five years, with not so much as an apology, but then unreasonably threatens to dismiss my cases over a few mistakes I have made. Considering the fact that they are supposed educated in law, and I am not. Yet, I am being demanded to be completely meticulous with no legal assistance, whatsoever, or face having my case, no matter how serious, dismissed is unfair.”

[54] Based on the record before me, it appears that the proposed amendments addressed on the Motions before Reid J. were with respect to the proper identification of the defendants to the Actions, not the substantive elements of the Statements of Claim. It may be the case that, in light of Mr. Keizer’s two acquittals and successful appeal of the OCB’s decision, he may have legitimate claims to advance which are currently obscured by the many deficiencies in his pleadings. In my view, he should be provided with a limited opportunity to remedy these deficiencies.

[55] Having balanced all of the competing interests, and considered all of the relevant factors and circumstances, I am not prepared, at this stage, to exercise the Court’s discretion to strike out the Actions and finally dispose of Mr. Keizer’s claims. I am satisfied in the circumstances that Mr. Keizer is entitled to a limited indulgence and accommodation of the Court to, if he wishes, seek leave to amend his Statements of Claim, provided that any such motions are scheduled by January 31, 2019. If Mr. Keizer does not do so, the Defendants, or any parties to the Actions, may move to have the Actions dismissed.

[56] I am mindful that Rule 2.1 and the relevant factors should be applied robustly. However, in balancing all of the competing interests, I conclude that a robust application does not, in these circumstances, require a dismissal of the Actions at this time where the Plaintiff has not been provided with an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies in his pleadings.

[57] Therefore, I conclude that it is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances and consistent with Rule 2.1 and the case law that the Actions remain stayed on the terms set out below.

[58] In granting Mr. Keizer this limited indulgence, I wish to make it clear that the onus is on him to take all necessary steps to amend and regularize the Statements of Claim including ensuring that all parties to the Actions are properly served with an Amended Statement of Claim and motion materials. While this Court has an obligation to reasonably and practically accommodate Mr. Keizer to present his case to the best of his abilities, it is not this Court’s role to provide Mr. Keizer with legal advice. Accordingly, given the significant deficiencies in his pleadings, I strongly recommend that he seek independent legal advice if he chooses to seek leave to amend.

IV. Disposition

[59] Order to go as follows:

i.) the Actions shall remain stayed pending further Order(s) of the Court;

ii.) Mr. Keizer may bring motions seeking leave to amend the Statements of Claim and to lift the stay of proceedings on proper notice to the Defendants and all parties to the Actions, provided that any such motions are scheduled by January 31, 2019, barring which, any party to the Actions may move to dismiss the Actions, on notice to Mr. Keizer;

iii.) the Registrar shall not accept any further filings in the Actions with the exception of any motion materials with respect to any motions brought in accordance with paragraph 59(ii) above.

[60] The costs of this motion are reserved to a future attendance.

[61] I shall remain seized of this matter.

Released: October 9, 2018 Master M.P. McGraw