Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-632287

DATE: 20200826

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Steven (Istvan) Dugalin, Plaintiff

– and –

The Attorney General of Canada et al., Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: August 26, 2020

Endorsement

[1] This action was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request by lawyers for Canada under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] Mr. Dugalin sues Canada for breach of his rights under s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms arising from his treatment after immigrating to Canada as a refugee in 1957.

[3] In 2017, Mr. Dugalin already sued the government for breaches of different sections of the Charter of Rights in relation to the same factual allegations.

[4] By reasons for decision dated November 19, 2019, Perell J. dismissed that action. He held that the applicable limitation period had expired years earlier so the action was barred under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B.

[5] Perell J. made the following findings:

[25] Apart from the presumption found in s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act and accepting the facts pleaded in Mr. Dugalin’s statements of claim and in his affidavits as true in 2012, Mr. Dugalin, whom it should be recalled was being assisted by a lawyer, knew that he had suffered injury, loss, or damage that had been caused by the actions of the Government of Canada and having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injuries he had suffered.

[6] No doubt, Mr. Dugalin has added a claim under s. 12 of the Charter. However, that does not appear to affect the rationale for the dismissal of the prior claim. It therefore appears to me that this action may be duplicative of a claim already dismissed by the court. Parties are not free to relitigate the same issue once it has been decided finally. Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733

[7] Mr. Dugalin should be provided with an opportunity to explain why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for being frivolous and vexatious. In this context, a “frivolous” lawsuit is one that cannot succeed. A “vexatious” lawsuit is one brought for an improper purpose or to vex the other side. See: Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 CanLII 7815 (ON CA).

[8] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing this action;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, this action is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43;

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the plaintiff and counsel for the defendant by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: August 26, 2020