Court File and Parties

Court File No. FC-11-38845-00

Superior Court of Justice Endorsement citation: ouslis v. knox, 2019 onsc 5320

Applicant(s): chris ouslis Counsel: lawrence liquornik

Respondent(s): marcia lebou knox Counsel: self-represented

Date: September 10, 2019

Endorsement

[1] The parties in this matter are spouses. Although an Affidavit for Divorce has been filed with the court it does not appear that a Divorce Order has been granted. For convenience of reference, the parties shall be called “the husband” and “the wife”.

[2] On May 26, 2017 Vallee J. made an Order prohibiting the wife from bringing motions without prior judicial approval. That Order was made after a lengthy trial in which Vallee J. was the trial judge. The wife had brought motions after the trial to, in essence, vacate or vary the Reasons for Decision and had told Vallee J. that it was her intent to bring many more motions.

[3] The wife wished to appeal the trial decision and the costs awarded against her. She brought a motion before the Court of Appeal seeking an extension of time for delivery of her Notice of Appeal and to stay the trial and costs awards.

[4] On June 30, 2017 Epstein J.A. described the wife’s materials as “very confusing” and made an Order prohibiting the wife from making any further motions to the Court of Appeal without leave. The wife had accused the husband and his counsel of fraud and alleged that the trial judge was complicit in the husband’s deceit. Epstein J.A. also noted that the wife had reported various lawyers and members of the judiciary to the Law Society and the Minister of Justice. What the wife seemed to be seeking was an Order pursuant to Family Law Rule 25(19) dealing with property and costs. That rule deals with changing an Order obtained by fraud, mistake or lack of notice.

[5] A motion by the wife for leave to bring a motion was dismissed by Charney J. on February 27, 2018 on a without prejudice basis. The wife had not indicated the nature of her intended motion or the relief claimed.

[6] There were several motions afterwards by the husband dealing with the wife’s payment of schooling costs for the parties’ children and enforcing and collecting costs owed by the wife. The most recent Order in that regard was made in the husband’s favour by Bird J. on February 27, 2019.

[7] On February 28, 2019 Bennett J. dismissed multiple Form 14B motions by the wife. Form 14B motions are restricted to procedural, uncomplicated or unopposed matters. Much of the relief requested by the wife had already been addressed by Bird J. the day before.

[8] On March 29, 2019 Douglas J. had seven 14B motions from the wife before him. One of those motions requested relief pursuant to FLR 25(19). All motions were dismissed. Douglas J. restricted the wife from bringing more than one motion for leave per month.

[9] On May 30, 2019, Sutherland J. had five 14B motions before him and one from the husband. The wife’s motions had been brought before March 29, 2019. Sutherland J. noted that the wife’s motions were “very repetitive. All are seeking the same or similar relief. The motions refer to the Constitution Act, Criminal Code, Income tax Act, Victims Bill of Rights Act”. Three of the wife’s motions were dismissed and leave was granted for two of the motions, those dealing with medical expenses and their reimbursement to the wife. As the husband’s motion dealt with relief already granted by Bird J. on February 27, 2019 Sutherland J. did not feel it necessary to deal with that motion. The wife did not appeal Sutherland J.’s Order.

[10] On June 25, 2019 the wife brought another motion for leave and requested a broad range of relief and to proceed with a Motion to Change seeking relief other than what Sutherland J. had permitted on May 30, 2019. This was dismissed by Sutherland J. on July 9, 2019.

[11] On July 18, 2019 the wife and the Director appeared before me with respect to a garnishment proceeding against the wife that she disputed. The husband appeared and, while he was not formally a part of the dispute, his counsel made submissions setting out the procedural history, or narrative, of the case. The wife’s dispute to the garnishment was dismissed. During her submissions, the wife challenged the Order of Bird J. (which had never been appealed) and the dismissal of her motion for FLR 25(19) relief by Douglas J. on March 29, 2019 and that restricted the wife to no more than one motion per month (and which also had never been appealed).

[12] The wife has now brought a motion for leave to proceed with a motion that asks for 17 substantive heads of relief, only one of which deals with schooling costs (a $50 tuition overpayment claimed from the husband) and $980.72 for credit card interest charges incurred when the husband and the parties’ daughter allegedly withheld from the wife proof of the daughter’s university enrollment. The affidavit in support is 31 pages in length comprising 182 paragraphs and 45 exhibits. The affidavit is replete with allegations of fraud, improper conduct of lawyers and judicial officials (such as suppression of evidence by the court), is argumentative, frequently contains hearsay, and is little more than a screed about anyone and anything involved with the parties’ domestic proceedings and whose conclusions and views differ from those of the wife.

[13] Counsel for the Director delivered an affidavit from a Senior Issues Co-ordinator employed by the Family Responsibility Office that provided context to the leave motion but refrained from dealing with any issue about entitlement. That affidavit dealt with the garnishment dispute on which I ruled, referred to the various Orders noted above and clarified the role of counsel for the Director in enforcement proceedings. The affidavit observed that the wife was bringing a motion for the same relief already dismissed by several judges of this court and the Court of Appeal. I agree.

[14] The wife is obliged to comply with the Order of Douglas J. made on March 29, 2019 and the Order made granting leave by Sutherland J. on June 25, 2019. If she does not then she risks this court making an Order not unlike that made by Epstein J.A. staying any further proceeding by the wife as being frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process. She risks being declared a vexatious litigant.

[15] The wife’s motion for leave is dismissed. Any affidavit in support of a motion for leave in future by the wife shall be limited to 5 pages. The draft motion and the affidavit shall only deal with those issues for which leave was granted. Only exhibits relevant to those issues will be permitted. These shall not, in the first instance, be served on the husband or the Director.

[16] I was provided with a copy of an October 2, 2019 request by the wife for a motion dealing with medical expenses, the date being approved by the Trial Coordinator. That date is vacated. The wife must proceed as ordered above. If she was intending to rely on the Form 14B material filed and which has been addressed in this endorsement then she must bring her proposed material into compliance with this Order. No motion date shall be granted without an Order for leave being first obtained.

[17] Court administration shall prepare and issue this Order and arrange for its service on the wife, counsel for the husband and the Director. A copy of the Affidavit of Service shall be filed in the Continuing Record. The court filing office shall be provided with a copy of this Order and shall post a notice on the Endorsement Record.

Justice David A. Jarvis

Released: September 11, 2019