Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00615322 DATE: 20190628 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Dik Lee AND: Magna International Inc., Cosma International Inc., Venest Industries Inc., Mike Rooke, Gina Aiello, Joel Minor, Joel Willick, and Steven Thususka

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Chalmers

COUNSEL: D. Lee, Self-Represented E. Gresham, Counsel for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing – Rule 2.1

Endorsement

[1] By letter dated June 18, 2019, the Defendants made a request that the motion brought by the Plaintiff, dated June 10, 2019, and returnable July 2, 2019 be dismissed pursuant to R. 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the motion is, on its face frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[2] I have been provided with the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion. Although the motion indicates that the affidavit of Dik Lee will be used at the hearing of the motion, the affidavit was not included. Also, I have not been provided with the Statement of Claim.

[3] In the motion, the Plaintiff is seeking an order that the lawyer representing the Defendants produce for inspection certain documentation. The documentation relates to an alleged harassment complaint made on or about March 14, 2018 by the Defendant, Steven Thususka against the Plaintiff. In addition to the request to produce for inspection certain documentation, the Plaintiff is also seeking an order to preserve all records and documents relevant to this action.

[4] Without the Statement of Claim, I am unable to determine whether the documentation which is to be reproduced for inspection or to be preserved is relevant. There is also no evidence before me as to whether the documentation may be privileged.

[5] Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is a streamlined procedure for disposing of motions that are, on their face frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process. The Rule is not intended to supplant the established procedure of responding to a motion: Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, at para. 43.

[6] Rule 2.1 is to be applied only in clear cases of abuse and is not “close calls”: Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801, at para. 9.

[7] In this case, the Plaintiff’s motion is for production and preservation of relevant documentation in the possession of the Defendants. The motion is not on its face frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

[8] It is my view that there was no basis for the Defendants to make a request that the motion be dismissed pursuant to R. 2.1.02. The Defendants ought to have simply responded to the motion based on the established procedure.

[9] I therefore dismiss the Defendants’ request pursuant to R. 2.1.02, to dismiss the Plaintiff’s motion returnable on July 2, 2019.

Chalmers, J. Date: June 28, 2019