Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 18-78689 Date: 20190102 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: BRIDE OV CHRIST, Plaintiff And: JUSTIN TRUDEAU, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ET AL, Defendants
Before: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
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 upon receipt of a requisition by counsel for the Defendants, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Richard Dearden and Hunter Fox. They seek 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. They further seek a stay of this action pending the resolution of this request. Lizi Peter, as representative of Bride ov Christ, was copied with that request.
[2] I have examined the Statement of Claim in this matter. The copy served on these Defendants bears a colour photograph of the Senate of Canada as the first page of the claim although this photograph is absent for the pleading in the court file.
[3] The Information for Court Use (Form 14F) indicates that the action is best described as a claim in Tort: Conspiracy of Silence, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering and Ostracism.
[4] The first eleven pages list all of the 817 Defendants. This list includes the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel and every member of the House of Commons and of the Senate. Other defendants include the Secretary General of the United Nations, Her Majesty the Queen, the Pope, President Trump, Oprah Winfrey and numerous other public figures and institutions. The Ontario Superior Court is, itself, named as a Defendant. It is unknown how many of these Defendants have been served with the Statement of Claim.
[5] The pleading is very short. The Plaintiff, “Bride ov Christ”, as represented by Lizi Peters, claims that all of the Defendants “are guilty of silencing her as an invisible minority, silence which prevents her from fully recovering from her trauma related Identity Disorder and her debilitating gastro-intestinal condition which remains undiagnosed to this day.”
[6] Later, the Plaintiff describes herself “as an Adult on the spectrum of autism as a high functioning Asperger recovering from Dissociative Identity Disorder following severe childhood trauma re-enacted through the emotionally abusive inaction of the Defendants these past 5 years…”
[7] She seeks damages in the amount of $160,061,000.00 (calculations available at www. lizipeters . com ).
[8] She has attached a letter dated December 5, 2018 addressed to the Governor General, Julie Payette, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lise Maisonneuve, Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice. In that letter, she complains of a failure to provide her with a correct psychiatric diagnosis. She concludes with these words: “It is for this reason that my Father into heaven now brings upon you today His Judgment.”
[9] Ms. Peters has responded by letter to the Defendants’ requisition. The letterhead refers to an organization: My Magiq Worqs International Incorporated . She claims that the Defendants’ request is delusional given the evidence available to all the Defendants via her Self Advocacy Campaign: the Lizi Peters Show available on her website.
[10] 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.
[11] Given the fact that I have already received written submissions from the Plaintiff, I see no purpose in following the procedure set out in rule 2.1.01(3). Furthermore, I would have exercised my discretion to dismiss the claim without receiving any further submissions from the Plaintiff.
[12] This pleading is one of the clearest examples of the type of claim targeted by Rule 2.1. It bears the unmistakable hallmarks of querulous litigant behavior identified in Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497. At law, there no recognized tort of conspiracy of silence or of ostracism. There is no pleading of material facts is support of her claim of intentional affliction of mental suffering and it is inconceivable how any of these proposed defendants could be held liable jointly or severally, for any of her claims.
[13] This action is dismissed against all of the Defendants as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. This proceeding may be a cry for help but the Plaintiff will not achieve any assistance through recourse to this Court.
[14] These Defendants are to prepare a formal order for my signature without the need to seek approval as to form and content by the Plaintiff. The Defendants shall then serve a copy of the entered order on the Plaintiff and file proof of service with the Registrar.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Date: January 2, 2019