Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00598962-0000 DATE: 20190404 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: STUART WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff/Responding Party AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT AND CONSUMER SERVICES, THE HUMBER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED LEARNING, YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER TORONTO (“YMCA”), CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ONTARIO, Defendants/Moving Parties

BEFORE: Justice S. Nakatsuru

COUNSEL: Stuart Weinstein, Self-represented, Plaintiff/Responding Party Erica Richler, for Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario, Defendant/Moving Party Jacob Pollice, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by Employment and Social Development Canada, Defendant/Moving Party Tanya Jemec, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, Defendants/Moving Parties Kate Dearden, for The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Defendant/Moving Party, Rebecca Bush, for Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto (“YMCA”), Defendant/Moving Party

HEARD: March 8, 2019

Endorsement

[1] Mr. Stuart Weinstein is suing a number of Defendants. The Defendants bring a joint motion to strike Mr. Weinstein’s Statement of Claim. At the same time, Mr. Weinstein brings a motion for an injunction. I will deal with the motion to strike. Then I will deal with the injunction.

[2] Before doing that, to give my decision some context, I will refer to what the Defendants say is at the core of Mr. Weinstein’s complaint: Mr. Weinstein took skills training courses funded by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario to be a condominium manager and that due to legislative requirements, he is currently not eligible for a General License as a condominium manager since he does not have the required two years’ work experience. This complaint is not taken from the Statement of Claim of Mr. Weinstein. This is taken from his submissions. My reasons will show why this is the case.

[3] Before I start, let me say this to you, Mr. Weinstein. You strike me as an intelligent man who sincerely feels a wrong has been done to you. You also have tried to learn about the law. You told me in court that you had done a paralegal course. I am not criticizing you, but you lack full and accurate knowledge about how the civil law operates. In saying this, I get it that you are not a lawyer. I empathize with the difficulties you have navigating your lawsuit. Indeed, I empathize with any person who finds themselves in the civil courts unable to afford a lawyer. And yours is not a straightforward case. You are trying to do your best. I have tried to give you help within the limits of my proper role. But the law must be applied to you. As it must be applied to everyone. Whether they have a lawyer to help them or not.

A. Leave to Bring the Motion to Strike

[4] The Defendants have brought this motion to strike Mr. Weinstein’s Statement of Claim after each has filed a Notice of Intent to Defend. Although, the filing of the Notice is a fresh step in the proceeding, I am prepared to grant leave, if leave is required, to the Defendants to bring the motion. In this case, there is a history before the motion was brought. Mr. Weinstein was made aware of the Defendants’ objections to his Statement of Claim and their intention to bring this motion. The Notice of Intent was filed in order to meet the deadline to avoid being noted in default. The Defendants have not deliberately dragged their feet on the motion or in conducting this case. There is no waiver by the Defendants of the irregularities in the pleading. I see no prejudice to Mr. Weinstein. Finally, I find it is in the best interests of all the parties, including Mr. Weinstein, that the sufficiency of his Statement of Claim be decided before this action is permitted to go further.

B. Motion to Strike

[5] I find it clear that this Statement of Claim does not comply with the law. That it must be struck. I appreciate Mr. Weinstein’s efforts in trying to get his matters before the courts. But he has not done it right.

[6] The two page Statement of Claim is admirable by attempting to be short and to the point. Brevity is sometimes lacking in pleadings. Certainly, Mr. Weinstein’s is brief. And he does set out in a very short way the types of causes of action he wants to bring. They have been identified as breach of contract, negligence, public malfeasance in office, and intentional interference with economic relations.

[7] However, what it is fundamentally lacking (something Justice Diamond has said in his endorsements on an earlier Rule 2.1 motion brought by the Defendants) are any material facts that gives meat to very spare bones of the pleadings. There is very little, if any, who, what, when, where, and how. As I said to Mr. Weinstein through my questions of him, the Statement of Claim should tell a story of facts about him and the Defendants. A story about what happened to him. What was said or done to him. What, if anything, was promised, to him? What was agreed to? When this happened. By whom. Etc. Most claims are like a story. No doubt, Mr. Weinstein’s claim, can lend itself to this type of story. From this story of facts, the causes of action are found. Obviously, the facts found in the story must ground all the legal requirements of any particular cause of action.

[8] I do know that there is more of a story that can be told. Even apart from Mr. Weinstein’s oral responses to my questions, his Notice of Motion for an injunction provides far more detail about what happened to him. So does his written submissions. However, these are not something I can consider. I say this, even though the Defendants themselves urge me to consider them. The Defendants’ position is that when I do, it is plain and obvious that there are no reasonable causes of action and no leave to amend should be granted. I find though that to do so would not be right. It would not be fair. It will not accord with the law.

[9] On this motion, I can only consider the Statement of Claim and the documents referred to in that Claim. The important document is the “Second Career Participant Agreement” signed between Mr. Weinstein and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. Amongst other things, this contract is about providing financial assistance while Mr. Weinstein is in a training program.

[10] When I consider these documents, I find it plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim contains no reasonable causes of actions. The fundamental reason is that no material facts are pled to support them.

[11] I will give some examples to show this. There is the “Second Career Participant Agreement” signed with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. Mr. Weinstein sues for a breach of this contract. But there are no material facts plead about how that contract was breached. What provision of that multi-page contract was breached? When it was breached? Who, if it was a person, breached it? What damages resulted from the breach?

[12] There is in the first three paragraphs of the Statement of Claim a reference to the Second Career Program that supports unemployed or laid-off individuals that require skills training and that people enter into them. However, none of this connects to Mr. Weinstein except through the contract.

[13] At this point let me say this, I fully appreciate the submissions of the Defendants that all Mr. Weinstein is trying to do is attack a legislative policy decision that has denied or impeded him from getting a condominium manager license. That may be what he is seeking. But there are no facts to support this one way or another. As I said, I cannot improperly import matters from other sources in my analysis.

[14] Mr. Weinstein also claims a breach of contract by the YMCA (as well as negligence) in administering the above contract. I appreciate that Mr. Weinstein pleads that the YMCA are representatives of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. However, there are no material facts pled about this alleged breach. Is Mr. Weinstein claiming that there is another contract in existence between him and the YMCA that was breached in some way? Or is he claiming that the YMCA is somehow a party to the Second Career contract above? If the latter, absent some fact that he could plead, it is plain and obvious this claim is certain to fail given the YMCA did not contract with Mr. Weinstein.

[15] In the same paragraph against the YMCA, Mr. Weinstein claims that the YMCA was negligent in administering the Second Career contract. This is a tort. It does not require a contractual relationship between Mr. Weinstein and the YMCA. However, the YMCA must owe Mr. Weinstein a duty of care. Aside from the plea that the YMCA administered this contract, no facts are put forward to establish a duty of care. No facts are put forward about what acts are said to be negligent. Who committed them? When. How this breached the standard of care. What damages resulted. There is nothing.

[16] Another example. Mr. Weinstein has claimed negligence also against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by Employment and Social Development Canada for giving training programs administration to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills development without proper oversight. However, that is all that is pled. There is nothing else. Again, there must be a duty of care owed. There must be acts that are said to be negligent. What are the facts that show the lack of proper oversight? Those acts must fail to meet the appropriate standard of care. There must be damages that flow.

[17] I see no point in going on. All of Mr. Weinstein’s claims suffer from this fundamental deficiency. Mr. Weinstein may believe that what he is suing for is plain. He has lived it. He believes the Defendants know about it. However, that story must be put into the Statement of Claim. The Statement of Claim must give clear notice to the Defendants what he is suing for. It informs the pre-trial steps such as production of documents and discovery. It will tell the trial judge what the case is all about.

[18] It may well be that the Defendants are correct about the submissions they have made. That Mr. Weinstein has no reasonable causes of actions even if material facts are properly pleaded. Such a pleading would allow a motion judge to properly assess such arguments. I point out to you, Mr. Weinstein, that the Defendants’ factum, when it comes to the law contained within it, is helpful. Both to you and to any judge hearing such a motion like this.

[19] My view is that the right result here is to strike the Statement of Claim. It is the fairest result. I want to emphasize that I am making no determination of whether the story Mr. Weinstein wishes to tell might provide a basis for any reasonable cause of action. I am simply saying that this Statement of Claim fails by not telling any story. The scant bones that exist in the pleading cannot hold up any of the claims made by Mr. Weinstein.

[20] Leave to amend. This should not be withheld lightly. I appreciate that Justice Diamond had already told Mr. Weinstein about the problems in the Statement of Claim. In his endorsement of August 16, 2018, Justice Diamond described his pleadings as “ripe” for a motion like this. I appreciate that Mr. Weinstein has not amended his Statement of Claim despite being told this. However, I must be sensitive to the context. He is self-represented. Being told by your opponents or by a judge on a different motion that the Statement of Claim is deficient is not the same message as having your claim struck. In my view, I cannot say that it is not possible that a proper claim can be fashioned by Mr. Weinstein. As I noted, one of the problems about this Statement of Claim is that it is so devoid of material facts that it is hard to determine this question. Taking into account all the circumstances, I find that Mr. Weinstein should be given a chance to correct the deficiencies in his pleading. Therefore, I will grant him leave to amend.

[21] Mr. Weinstein will have 30 days from the date of this decision to file an Amended Statement of Claim.

C. Motion for an Injunction

[22] In my view, none of the requirements for injunctive relief are met. His materials and submissions do not meet the test. As best as I can make out Mr. Weinstein’s motion, he really wants the remedies that could be awarded to him if he is successful at trial. That is not what an injunction is for. It is not my role to offer Mr. Weinstein any advice. However, I will say that if he is unable to afford a lawyer, his efforts will be best spent in amending his Statement of Claim so that it can support a reasonable cause of action.

D. Costs

[23] Although the Defendants were each represented in court by counsel, they have taken a fair position regarding costs. Given their complete success, costs should follow the event. However, I will not award significant costs. Taking into account all the appropriate factors, I shall award fairly nominal costs to the parties who took the lead on this motion. Given the nature of the Statement of Claim here and the injunction motion, this should have been straightforward motions. In addition, I fear that a greater award of costs may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle to Mr. Weinstein in pursuing his day in court. Thus, Mr. Weinstein shall pay Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario costs in the amount of $500 each, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days. The other Defendants shall bear their own costs.

Justice S. Nakatsuru Released: April 4, 2019