Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-128 DATE: 20190418 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Michael Minder, Plaintiff AND: The Queen in right of Ontario, Attorney General of Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Defendants

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice S.E. Healey

COUNSEL: Self-represented Plaintiff Adam Mortimer, Counsel for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

[1] Michael Minter commenced a claim on January 18, 2019, which initially named the following entities and individuals: the Queen in Right of Ontario, Attorney General of Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Dana Kuska Caseworker - Team 2/Ontario Disability Support Program, Carol Mcdermott, Landlord and Tenant Board, Lorraine Matthers, Tenant and Landlord Board (as it appears on the claim) and Kevin Lundy, Tenant and Landlord Board.

[2] It appears from the face of the statement of claim that, sometime prior to the pleading being issued by the registrar, the names of all but the first three defendants were crossed out, along with their addresses and fax numbers.

[3] The claim begins with the following assertion:

Without prejudice the plaintiff claims the defendants are guilty of breach of duty:

The failure to perform a legal or moral obligation owed to a person or to the public.

The failure to act as required by the law.

The failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same or similar situation.

[4] No relief or remedy is sought.

[5] The claim then continues with a partial reference to sections of the Charter and principles enshrined therein.

[6] The allegations section of the claim boils down to the plaintiff’s discontent with the processes and outcome of a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”). He complains that the “Ontario government and its workers failed to perform a legal and moral act to the plaintiff (a person of the public) through its Landlord and Tenant Board…”.

[7] The allegations read as an attempt to re-argue the hearing process undertaken before the Board. The claim attempts a collateral attack on the Board’s findings and orders. The plaintiff also alleges errors in findings and rulings made by its adjudicators, which the defendants failed to address. The plaintiff blames the defendants for failing to take certain actions or rectify errors related to that hearing and/or the tenants, who are vaguely referred to in the pleading.

[8] The plaintiff also alleges that he has lost money and has been placed in legal jeopardy because of how various real estate transactions have been affected by the processes and decisions of the Board. The plaintiff also claims to have been impacted by the actions of a social worker employed by the Ontario Disability Support Program who, together with a tenant, “swindled the plaintiff from receiving rent due”.

[9] In the body of the pleading, it is alleged that the acts or omissions of the defendants have created “traumatic stress syndrome”, for which the plaintiff is asking for $2.9 million, presumably in damages.

[10] In accordance with the procedure set out in R. 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, this court invited submissions from both parties. The plaintiff’s submissions are reproduced in their original form:

I received the form 2.1A notice today March 20, 2019 in the mail. I Michael Minder the plaintiff am requesting that proceeding is stayed, since my original claims are legitimate, secondary to monetary losses and the violation of my charter of rights by the QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. The courts consideration itself seems to be “frivolous or vexations” and an abuse of power, since its reasoning is rhetoric and without substantiation.

[11] The governing principles to be considered in the face of a request to dismiss a proceeding that on its face appears to be frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, are set out in the leading decisions of Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87 (Ont. C.A.); Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100, 37 C.L.R. (4th) 1 (Ont. S.C.J.); Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497, 37 C.L.R. (4th) 7 (Ont. S.C.J.); and Van Sluytman v. Muskoka (District Municipality), 2018 ONCA 32, 2018 CarswellOnt 301 (C.A.).

[12] As set out in Scaduto, at para. 8:

Under this line of authority, the court has recognized that the rule should be interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. However, the use of the rule should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process.

[13] Having regard to the principles set out in these authorities and additional cases decided under R. 2.1.01, such as Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625, 2017 CarswellOnt 16235 (C.A.), I conclude that this pleading is an abuse of process, as well as being frivolous and vexatious.

[14] The statement of claim is an abuse of process because it constitutes an attempt to relitigate a matter already heard and determined by the Board. It also falls within this category because it places before the Superior Court of Justice subject matter that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board pursuant to s. 168(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. Further, any reconsideration of the Board’s orders is by appeal to the Divisional Court, pursuant to s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

[15] On its face, the claim is frivolous and vexatious because: 1) no relief is sought; 2) no legally recognizable claim is made; 3) the allegations are far-reaching, grandiose and without legal merit; and 4) the claim itself has curious formatting, misuse of technical terms and includes some irrelevant attachments. Where a monetary amount is requested, it attaches to a ‘syndrome’ not recognized by the law, and bears only a tenuous relationship to the rest of the claim.

[16] The plaintiff’s response to this court’s form 2.1A illustrates that he is a litigant who does not understand or have proper regard for the Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s processes, and whose use of the court system to advance unmeritorious claims will remain unchecked unless fully addressed. It is for these types of pleadings and litigants that R. 2.1.01 was developed and implemented: Gao, at paras. 5, 11 and 12.

[17] I agree with and adopt the entirety of the submissions made by counsel for the defendants with respect to there being no recognizable or actionable claim against the defendants, reproduced below:

No Claims against Crown

The plaintiff asserts “claims” that do not amount to recognized causes of action against the Crown. The plaintiff alleges the Crown is liable for:

• “failure to perform a legal or moral obligation owed to a person or the public”;
• “failure to act as required by the law”; and
• “failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same or similar situation”.

These are not viable claims. These first two “claims” are bare allegations that defendants owe unspecified legal obligations to the plaintiff that were not satisfied. There is no cause of action for “moral obligation”. The final “claim” mirrors the standard of care test in a negligence claim, but no particulars or other elements of negligence are pleaded.

The plaintiff seeks damages:

• For not receiving rent for his property and having to pay utilities for additional months because the LTB did not order a tenant evicted soon enough;
• for not receiving rent payments for a tenant directly from the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”), thereby “swindling” him and breaching a contract;
• for the LTB delaying his ability to close a sale of the property, and purchase another property, resulting in a sale below market value; and
• $2.9 million for ‘traumatic stress syndrome” caused by litigating before the LTB and related financial difficulties.

It is obvious on its face that neither the Crown nor a Crown servant or agent can be held liable for these damages.

The plaintiff alleges the Crown is vicariously liable for the actions of LTB members, and an ODSP worker. However, the plaintiff has no claims against these Crown servants.

The Crown is only liable for torts committed by Crown servants or agents if the servant or agent could themselves be held liable. Regarding the conduct of LTB members, the members are immune from suit when acting in their official capacity. Furthermore, the Crown is immune from suit for the actions of servants discharging responsibilities of a judicial nature, which the LTB members do. See: Proceedings against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 27 ss. 5(1)-(2), (6). Taylor v. Levitt, at para. 8 (SC).

To the extent that the plaintiff claims for breach of contract, the Crown is not privy to the plaintiff’s rental agreements, and no other contracts are identified in the claim.

No Claims Against the AGO or MAG

The plaintiff makes no allegations regarding the AGO or MAG. There is no tenable claim against either. The AGO is not vicariously liable for other Crown servants, aside from criminal prosecutors under specific circumstances. MAG is not a corporate entity, and is not capable of being sued in its own right. See: Ministry of the Attorney General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.17, ss. 2, 8.

[18] For all of the preceding reasons, this court orders pursuant to R. 2.1.01(1) that the claim is dismissed.

[19] The registrar is directed to mail a copy of the order as required by R. 2.1.01(5). This Endorsement will be released to the parties by mail by the judicial assistants’ office.

Healey, J. Date: April 18, 2019