Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-19-80574 Date: 2019-07-03 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Deirdre Moore, Plaintiff And: Victor Vallance Blais LLP, Defendant

Before: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Counsel: Suzanne Sviergula, for the Defendant (Plaintiff self-represented)

Heard: By Requisition

Endorsement

[1] This matter was referred to me by the Registrar pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (“the rules”), upon receipt of a requisition by counsel for the Defendant, Victor Vallance Blais LLP (“VVB”). Counsel seeks an order under sub-rule 2.1.01(1) dismissing this action as the Statement of Claim appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Counsel also seeks a stay of the action pending the resolution of this request.

[2] I have reviewed the Statement of Claim in this matter. The plaintiff claims: − pecuniary damages in the amount of $25,000 due to defamation; − pecuniary damages in the amount of $45,000 due to intentional infliction of emotional suffering; − pecuniary damages in the amount of $28,999 due to the negligent infliction of emotional suffering.

[3] The plaintiff claims that on May 31, 2019, she emailed VVB asking if the law firm would consent to the service of a Statement of Claim in another action. (19-79074). No particulars of that action are provided.

[4] Not having received a response, five hours later, the plaintiff sent a further email asking if VVB was evading service. VVB replied; “Please specify the lawyer this email is intended for. Thank you.”

[5] Between May 31, 2019 and June 1, 2019. (1 day), the plaintiff then emailed the Statement of Claim to VVB. Having not received any acknowledgement from VVB that same day, the plaintiff sent them her Statement of Claim via courier. This was followed by a further email from the plaintiff on June 3 where, once again, she sought acknowledgement of service.

[6] On June 3, 2019, counsel for VVB, Ms. Sviergula, sent an email to the plaintiff acknowledging service and advising her that she represented Ms. Blais and her firm and asked that any further communications be directed to her.

[7] Since counsel’s email did not specifically mentioned VVB, the plaintiff attended the office of VVB and served the Statement of Claim.

[8] The plaintiff claims that immediately thereafter, she experienced a significant degree of anxiety and was forced to manage it or else risk the onset of a psychotic episode. She claims that the defendant’s actions inflicted emotional suffering upon her and that she effectively utilized music therapy rather than medication.

[9] The plaintiff alleges that if she were to suffer another psychotic break during the separation process from her ex-husband, the likelihood that she would regain custody and access to her two children would decrease significantly.

[10] She claims that she began to experience severe nightmares that evening which she managed, once again, through music therapy.

Disposition

[11] Rule 16.01(1) requires personal service of an originating process. Since the defendant, VVB, is a law partnership, rule 16.02(1)(m) applies. Service can be made by leaving a copy of the statement of claim with any one or more of the partners or with a person at the principal place of business of the partnership who appears to be in control or management of the place of business.

[12] VVB is not required to accept service on any other manner. VVB is justified in making inquiries, as it did in this case, before agreeing to accept service by any other method.

[13] This pleading is a clear example of the type of claim targeted by Rule 2.1. Even if read generously, the plaintiff has not pleaded any material facts in support of a claim of defamation or of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional suffering. The facts as pleaded, cannot possibly give rise to any such claims which have no chance of success.

[14] Rule 2.1.01(2) sets out the procedure to be followed in determining if an action appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Rule 2.1.01(3) directs that:

Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under sub-rule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures.

[15] I see no purpose in following the procedure set out in rule 2.1.01(3). I exercise my discretion pursuant to the Rule to dismiss the claim without receiving any further submissions from the plaintiff.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Date: July 3, 2019 Released: July 3, 2019