Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-15-527141 CV-15-527244 CV-15-527464 CV-14-499101 CV-15-521046 CV-15-535263 CV-15-536432
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Mark Gledhill, Plaintiff And: Toronto Police Services Board et al., Defendants
Before: D.A. Wilson J.
Counsel: Mark Gledhill, self-represented
Heard: In Writing
Endorsement
Background
1Mark Gledhill (“Gledhill”) has been declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Orders of Justice Dunphy of September 17, 2015 in court file numbers CV-15-527464 (the Toronto Police Services Board file), CV-15-527141 (the Mikegold Construction case) and in CV-15-527244 (the HMQ case). The orders of Justice Dunphy also included numerous other actions commenced by Gledhill: CV-14-499101; CV-15-521046; CV-15-535263; and CV-15-536432.
2The court orders prohibited Gledhill from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceeding previously instituted in any court in Ontario until leave was obtained in accordance with the provisions of section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43. Justice Dunphy specified a procedure for the application for leave: it must be in writing, sent to the Regional Senior Justice (“RSJ”) of Toronto with an affidavit outlining the merits of the proposed proceeding or step, which affidavit could not exceed 10 pages in length. The RSJ would then give further directions or dismiss the application.
3In September, 2016 Gledhill sent a brief of materials requesting a date in Civil Practice Court (“CPC”) to set a motion date. In an endorsement dated September 27, 2016, Justice McEwen denied the request for a CPC date and ordered that if Gledhill wished to obtain leave to bring a motion, he was obligated to follow the appropriate procedure as specified in the orders of Justice Dunphy.
4In a letter dated December 15, 2018, sent to Justice McEwen, Gledhill “provides case law in support of an application under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to continue matters begun before vexatious declaration orders issued… and matters outside the scope of those orders…”
5Glenhill brings a motion for leave to continue/commence proceedings pursuant to s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act. The motion was apparently served on a variety of counsel including the solicitor for the Toronto Police Services Board.
6What is contained in the notice of motion is difficult to comprehend. It includes reference to various “disposed criminal matters”, alleged breaches of the Charter and includes copies of trial verification forms in the provincial court, recognizance of bail forms, receipts for cheques written in 2009, and orders from the Landlord and Tenant Board and Toronto Small Claims Court.
7In his notice of motion, Gledhill relies on Rule 14.01(3) and (4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended. That rule refers to leave that is necessary to commence a proceeding. No affidavit is filed in support of the motion for leave. It is not clear what actions Gledhill wishes to pursue—the face page of a variety of Statements of Claim are included in the materials, but nothing that explains what it is Gledhill wishes to do or why leave should be granted.
Analysis
8Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act stipulates that when a vexatious litigant applies for leave to proceed with a matter or to institute a new one, leave shall be granted only if the court is satisfied that the proceeding sought to be instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding.
9Gledhill has failed to follow the procedure outlined in the order of Justice Dunphy of September 17, 2015; he has failed to file an affidavit that outlines the merits of the proposed proceeding or next step. He has done what he did in September, 2016 when he filed a brief containing a multitude of documents without an affidavit, and he served a variety of solicitors, in direct contravention of the order of Dunphy J.
10The documents provided by Gledhill are simply an array of papers, many containing hand-written notes or “rants”, without any explanation. Certainly this “motion” does not comply with the order of Justice Dunphy, nor does it approach persuading the court that Gledhill ought to be granted leave to continue on with a number of actions or perhaps institute some additional ones. It is clear that the moving party does not comprehend the ramifications of being declared a vexatious litigant or the process that must be followed, as set out in the Courts of Justice Act and in the orders of Dunphy J. What Gledhill is attempting to do at the present time, is exactly what he did in September, 2016, when his “motion” was dismissed by McEwen J.
Disposition
11Gledhill’s motion for leave to proceed pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act is dismissed.
D.A. Wilson J.
Date: January 17, 2019