COURT FILE NO.: 18-76200
DATE: 20190201
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: LIZI PETERS, Plaintiff
AND
MARGARET TRUDEAU, BCE INC., BELL CANADA, BELL LETS TALK, BELL MEDIA INC., CTV TELEVISION NETWORK and CTV NEWS, 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, BCE Inc. Bell Canada, Bell Let’s Talk, Bell Media Inc. CTV Television and CTV News. They seek an order under 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 process court. The also seek a stay of this action pending the resolution of their request. The Plaintiff, Lizi Peters, was copied with this request.
[2] I have examined the Statement of Claim in this matter. At paragraph 9, the Plaintiff claims relief as well as a formal public apology with respect to a broadcast aired on CTV on January 31, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that this broadcast was defamatory and “a clear misrepresentation and a breach of social contract, valued at $93.4 M https://’esttalk.bell.ca/en/results-impact/ to fight stigma surrounding mental illness.”
[3] This CTV broadcast was part of Bell Canada’s “Let’s Talk” campaign and featured an interview between Todd Vander Hayden and Margaret Trudeau. Margaret Trudeau is a well-known Canadian and the mother of Canada’s current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. Ms. Trudeau has been very public about her own mental health issues and she has received recognition for her work to combat mental illness.
[4] The Plaintiff describes herself as “an invisible minority” and as “an adult on the spectrum of autism recovering from a Dissociative Identity Disorder.” She claims to be homeless. The Plaintiff alleges that during that broadcast, Margaret Trudeau produced a defamatory statement and caused her an intentional suffering. The Plaintiff fails to state what words caused this harm to her beyond her disagreement with one comment that Ms. Trudeau may have made about mental health issues generally. There is no pleading that the Plaintiff is named or is otherwise identified in the broadcast.
[5] The other Defendants are either improperly named or, are not legal entities. At paragraph ten of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff appeals to the Defendants to award her the same privilege in the form of an opportunity to talk openly about her mental suffering. She seeks “to authenticate her mental reality and genuine identity via a public broadcast, which is the only way for her to reach all those who knew her as either Mireille St. Pierre or Maya Mathewson, her two alternate identities.”
[6] The Plaintiff concludes her claim with this final paragraph:
11 Should the defendants refuse the Plaintiff a Public Broadcast and insist on persistently silencing her, the Plaintiff values her silence at $11.1 M (despite her belief that freedom of speech is priceless) and will moved to file a motion for a publicly televised trial.
[7] The Plaintiff is known to this Court as the legal representative of the Plaintiff, “Bride ov Christ.” She has previously commenced a proceeding against the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, and 817 other Defendants. In that action, (Court file no. 18-78689) she also sought a significant amount of damages for her mental suffering. On January 2, 2019, I dismissed that action as being frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.[^1] I concluded that the action was a cry for help but that the Plaintiff would not achieve any assistance through recourse to this Court.
[8] This pleading is a further example of the type of claim targeted by Rule 2.1. There is no pleading of material facts in support her claim of defamation or intentional infliction of mental suffering. On its face, the claim is frivolous and vexatious and an obvious abuse of the process of the courts. It cannot be cured by any amendment or by the provision of further particulars. While this Court recognizes that this Plaintiff may be experiencing personal difficulties, this pleading is nothing more than a further attempt to use litigation to draw public attention to her psychiatric problems.
[9] Once again, I exercise my discretion pursuant to rule 2.1.01(3) to dismiss this claim against all of the Defendants without receiving any further submissions from the Plaintiff.
[10] 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 by email and file proof of service with the Registrar.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: February 1, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: 18-76200
DATE: 20190201
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: LIZI PETERS, Plaintiff
AND
MARGARET TRUDEAU, BCE INC., BELL CANADA, BELL LETS TALK, BELL MEDIA INC., CTV TELEVISION NETWORK and CTV NEWS, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: February 1, 2019
[^1]: 2019 ONSC 43, 2019 ONSC 0043