Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-82993 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Roger Callow, Plaintiff AND: Doctor Anik Vandewaetere c/o Towngate Family Medicine, Defendant

BEFORE: Master Kaufman

COUNSEL: Alexander Bissonnette, Counsel for the Defendant

HEARD: In writing

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is the fourth request to dismiss one of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff has commenced numerous claims which all reference an involuntary committal at the Ottawa hospital, a suspension of his driver’s licence, vague allegations of conspiracy and interference with his rights, and requests for disclosure. Each claim is short (5-6 paragraphs).

Dr. Vanderwaetere’s request to dismiss under Rule 2.1

[2] The defendant requests an Order under rule 2.1.01(1) dismissing this action on the ground that the Statement of Claim appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process. In addition to the statement of claim, the defendant has attached an endorsement dated February 27, 2020 from Deputy Judge Conway and an Order of R.S.J. MacLeod dismissing his action against Dr. Jahagirdar under Rule 2.1.

[3] The plaintiff received a copy of the defendant’s request for dismissal. He provided the defendant with his own representations, which he asked to be included in the record to be presented to the court. I have read and considered the plaintiff’s representations, and it is therefore unnecessary to direct the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff that the Court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.

The plaintiff’s complaint against Dr. Vanderwaetere

[4] In this action, the plaintiff alleges that Dr. Vanderwaetere “has perverted the course of justice in a mandamus court held on February 27 in a significant manner affecting other filed cases involving the plaintiff; particularly as it relates to key disclosure information”. The remaining paragraphs contain vague allegations against the “other defendants” who allegedly participated in Dr. Jahagirdar’s conduct and induced her to breach her duties.

[5] The plaintiff’s representations to the Court dated July 5, 2020 provide additional information. He states that he sent Dr. Vanderwaeter a letter complaining about her non-attendance at a “dispute resolution trial on February 27, 2020”. He then complains that she did not respond to his claim within 21 days and that his allegations should be taken as true. The plaintiff adds that a “controversial court hearing was held on February 27 which led to his filing against Dr. Vanderwaeter”, because as a witness she was to present the evidence the plaintiff sought, but she did not attend.

[6] The defendant attached the endorsement of Deputy Judge Conway. While evidence is not admissible under Rule 2.1, the Court is entitled to consider judicial decisions in other cases. [1] Deputy Judge Conway’s endorsement was made at a settlement conference in the Small Claims Court on February 27, 2020. She writes that the plaintiff appeared at the settlement conference seeking his medical records and his driver’s licence but not damages. She adds that Mr. Bissonnette advised the Court and the plaintiff that there was a mechanism to obtain this information through the information and privacy commissioner. Deputy Judge Conway concludes that she does not have the jurisdiction to order production from third parties and that, in any event, the claim before her did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. She dismissed the claim with costs.

[7] Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Vanderwaetere is that she did not appear at a settlement conference in Small Claims Court (which he incorrectly describes as a “Mandamus Court”) to deliver the medical documents he was requesting. This is a clear case of abusive litigation and this action is hereby dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

Master Kaufman Date: July 13, 2020

Reference

[1] D’Souza v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2019 ONSC 7250 at para 14.