COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00082301
DATE: 20201105
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: LOUIS WATSON, Plaintiff
AND
ASHLEIGH WATSON, Defendant
BEFORE: Justice J. McNamara
COUNSEL: Plaintiff is self-represented
James Anderson, for the Defendant
HEARD: October 22, 2020
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a motion for summary judgment brought by the Defendant, Ashleigh Watson for an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s action against her in whole or in part. Summary judgment is to be granted under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 if the court is satisfied there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Background
[2] This civil action was commenced on December 17, 2019. At the same time, there were ongoing proceedings in the family branch of this Court that had been commenced on July 5, 2019. In the civil action, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of a Dodge Grand Caravan, a declaration the Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff, restitution of the vehicle, damages for all expenses incurred, and for the diminished value of the vehicle. In addition, there are claims for damages in libel and for malicious prosecution.
[3] The essential background facts of this matter are that the parties separated in the spring of 2019 and the Plaintiff commenced an application in the family branch of this Court on July 5, 2019. It very quickly developed into a high conflict proceeding.
[4] One of the issues in dispute was the aforementioned Dodge Grand Caravan. The vehicle was registered in the name of the Plaintiff, but upon separation, it was in the possession of the Defendant while the Plaintiff allegedly had possession of another vehicle. The Defendant suggests that there was an oral agreement to this effect, which the Plaintiff disputes.
[5] On August 29, 2019, the Plaintiff sent a tow truck to the Defendant’s residence and had the Dodge towed to a car dealership on Richmond Road. This occurred just after midnight. A security guard at the dealership saw an individual going through the car and the guard called the police. They came and met up with the Plaintiff. After speaking with the Plaintiff, an officer called the Defendant who indicated she was just in the process of calling the police when they called her. She indicated to the officer they were in a matrimonial dispute and it was her understanding she would be the primary owner and user of this vehicle. The police chose to arrest the Plaintiff and he was in custody until the morning waiting for a detective to interview him. That detective, after learning this all had to do with a matrimonial dispute, decided not to lay charges and the Plaintiff was released.
[6] The next day, the Defendant posted the following on her Facebook page:
Wow Louis Watson has sunk to a new low! Crazy bastard stole my car the other night and ended up spending a night in jail. I guess there is some justice in the world lol.
[7] As indicated earlier, on December 17, 2019, the Plaintiff issued the Statement of Claim that is the subject of this motion.
[8] The family court proceedings continued and on September 21, 2020 they were resolved when Justice Doyle of this Court issued a final order. Amongst other things, the Order provides that neither party shall pay the other an equalization payment, and the parties shall be solely responsible for their own debts. It also provided that the Defendant would provide the Plaintiff with the 2015 Dodge in its current condition, which she did.
The Test for Summary Judgment
[9] Rule 20.04 (2) requires the court to grant summary judgment if the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence. There are two parts to the test. First, the court must consider all the evidence submitted by the parties and decide whether the evidence demonstrates a genuine issue. Secondly, even if there is a genuine issue, the court must determine if it is reasonable and just to decide the issue without a trial.
[10] The leading case on the use of summary judgment continues to be Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, 2014 1 S.C.R. 87, where the Supreme Court of Canada stated at para.49:
There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.
Position of the Parties
[11] The Defendant’s counsel submits that the issue of the Dodge was dealt with in the family court proceedings. Specifically, he points to paragraph six where it provides neither party shall make and equalization payment, and the parties shall be solely responsible for their own debts. He also points to paragraph eight where there is provision for the return of the Dodge to the Plaintiff in its current condition
[12] He submits that all the relief sought by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim and relating to the vehicle is barred by the operation of res judicata, having been settled on a final basis by the order of Justice Doyle.
[13] The Plaintiff argues that while some of the relief set out in the Statement of Claim was satisfied by Justice Doyle’s Order, not all issues were resolved and need to be dealt with in the civil action.
[14] It is also argued by the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s remaining claims for malicious prosecution and defamation are also barred by the operation of res judicata. The Plaintiff did not specifically deal with the res judicata issue in the context of the torts of malicious prosecution and defamation other than to again submit that there are no longer any family proceedings, these issues have not been dealt with, and he stands by his Statement of Claim.
Analysis
[15] There is considerable guidance provided by the case law in this area.
[16] In Lee v. Lee, 2010 ONSC 4524, 91 R.F.L. (6th) 385, a decision of Justice Perell of this Court, there are some similarities to the case at bar. In that case, the parties were involved in matrimonial litigation that started in December 2007 and ended with a consent divorce in October 2009. Just before the matrimonial litigation formally ended, Mr. Lee began a tort action against his former spouse and another individual. Interestingly the claim sought damages, amongst many other things, for defamation and malicious prosecution.
[17] Counsel for the wife submitted that, as is the case here, Mr. Lee was aware of the circumstances he alleged gave rise to the various causes of action raised in the civil action, and he ought to have brought them forward as issues to be decided in the matrimonial proceedings.
[18] Justice Perell agreed. At paras. 37 and 38 of his decision he states:
37 … there is no genuine issue requiring a trial and the inevitable outcome would be, and is, that Mr. Lee’s various tort claims against Ms. Monforton are barred by cause of action estoppel under the doctrine of res judicata.
38 Res judicata ( “a matter adjudicated”) is the rule that a final judgement on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding and determinative of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits with respect to fundamental issues decided in the former suit (issue estoppel) and with respect to causes of action and defences that were decided (cause of action estoppel) or could and ought to have been decided in the former suit, the rule from Henderson v. Henderson (1843), 67 E.R. 313, 3 Hare 100. (emphasis added)
[19] In the case at bar, Mr. Watson clearly knew all the facts he says support his causes of action set in the Statement of Claim, and he knew them well before he settled his matrimonial case. Those causes of action ought to have been advanced as part of the matrimonial proceedings. All of the factual events upon which he relies arose out of the same incident surrounding the Dodge vehicle. The subject of the civil action is his former wife’s conduct and the Plaintiff, Mr. Watson, could have litigated all the issues at the same time.
[20] The following is a quote from Henderson at p. 319:
… Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgement, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time .
[21] There is a very real interest of society at issue here, namely to minimize the costs of ongoing litigation arising out of the same facts. Our courts are overburdened and litigating the same issues is counterproductive.
[22] On the facts before me and for the reasons outlined above, I have concluded there is no genuine issue requiring a trial as the Plaintiff’s civil action is barred by cause of action estoppel under the doctrine of res judicata.
[23] In conclusion, the Defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment is granted.
Mr. Justice James McNamara
Date: November 5, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00082301
DATE: 20201105
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: LOUIS WATSON, Plaintiff
AND
ASHLEIGH WATSON, Defendant
BEFORE: Mr. Justice James McNamara
COUNSEL: Plaintiff is self-represented
James Anderson, for the Defendant
ENDORSEMENT
McNamara J.
Released: November 5, 2020