Ronald Montreuil v. Larmer & Wayne Stickland et al.

NORTH BAY COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-002-0000

DATE: 2021/01/15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Ronald Montreuil, Plaintiff

AND:

Larmer & Wayne Stickland et al., Defendants

BEFORE: Justice K.E. Cullin

COUNSEL: Ronald Montreuil, Plaintiff, Self-Represented Peter Diavolitsis, for the Defendants, Larmer & Wayne Stickland Sabrina Lucenti, for the Defendant, Geoffrey LaPlante Adam Pantel, for the Defendant, John D’Agostino James Ireland, Defendant, Self-Represented Alexander Melfi, for the Defendant, William Sangster (Action CV-17-6731) Wayne Stickland, for the Defendant, R.J.M. Garnets Inc. (Action CV-17-6731)

HEARD: November 26, 2020

ENDORSEMENT

Summary

[1] This is a motion, brought by the Defendant Larmer Stickland (identified in the title of proceedings as Larmer & Wayne Stickland) and by the Defendant John D’Agostino, seeking to regularize the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. The Defendants, Geoffrey LaPlante and James Ireland, filed affidavit materials in support of the Defendants’ motion.

[2] The Plaintiff, Ronald Montreuil, is self-represented and opposed the motion. It is his view that the pleadings are easier to understand and will be easier to litigate in the form in which he has served them.

[3] There was also an outstanding request by the Defendants D’Agostino and LaPlante, pursuant to Rule 2.1, for the dismissal of the claims against them. Counsel for the Defendants advised that they will await the Court’s decision regarding the regularization of the pleadings and, if after receiving that decision they still wish to proceed with a request pursuant to Rule 2.1, they will renew that request to the Registrar. As such, there will be no adjudication of the Rule 2.1 requests to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims at this time.

Preliminary Issues

[4] This motion was originally returnable on February 14, 2020. In addition to the request to regularize the pleadings, the Notice of Motion also requested that all motions in this proceeding and in the proceeding commenced by the Plaintiff in the Superior Court of Justice in North Bay, Ontario, bearing Court File No. CV-17-6731 be heard by the same Judge; this request was made pursuant to Rule 37.15(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (“the Rules”).

[5] On the return date of the motion on February 14, 2020, Regional Senior Justice (RSJ) Ellies appointed Justice Kurke to case manage this proceeding, to hear this motion and to address a request by some of the Defendants to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Rule 2.1.

[6] On March 15, 2020, there was a Province-wide interruption of Court services as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 14, 2020, this motion was adjourned sine die (without a return date). Regional judicial teams were developed in response to the Court’s modified operations; Justice Kurke was assigned to the criminal law team, and I was assigned to the civil litigation team. When Court operations resumed, counsel for the Defendant Larmer Stickland requested that the Court schedule a return date for the motion. On June 3, 2020, RSJ Ellies transferred case management and motion duties for this file to me as a member of the civil litigation team.

[7] A Case Management Conference was conducted by me by teleconference on June 18, 2020. At that time, the Plaintiff advised that it was his preference to argue the motion in-person. As no in-person motions were being conducted at that time, the matter was adjourned to August 31, 2020 for a further Conference. By August 31, 2020, in-person motions had resumed, and the motion was scheduled for argument on November 26, 2020.

[8] A Pre-Motion Conference was conducted by teleconference on November 23, 2020. The Plaintiff indicated that he had not been feeling well, and that he felt his condition was being aggravated by stress. He indicated that he was going to attend his family physician. The possibility of COVID-related symptoms was canvassed, which he denied. He was asked whether he felt ready to proceed with the motion; he indicated that he was. He was asked to advise the Court how he wished to proceed (or whether he wished to proceed) after speaking to his physician. He was encouraged to consider participating in the motion by teleconference or videoconference if he were medically able to proceed. The Court heard nothing further from the Plaintiff between November 23, 2020 and November 26, 2020.

[9] On November 26, 2020, the Plaintiff attended Court in person. I note that the Plaintiff resides in Mattawa, Ontario, which is approximately (45) minutes by car from North Bay, where the motion was being heard. The Plaintiff indicated that his physician advised him that the Court proceedings were causing stress and medical issues for him and that he should be taking a break from the litigation. He was asked how he wished to proceed. He advised that he wished to proceed with the motion, and thereafter to, “take a break” (or words to that effect). He was asked by the Court if he felt ready and able to proceed. He indicated that the outstanding motion was a source of stress for him and that he wanted to have it completed. Given the Plaintiff’s submissions that he was ready and wished to proceed, the fact that the motion involved an uncomplicated procedural issue (as opposed to substantive relief), and the fact that the Plaintiff had travelled (45) minutes or more to attend the motion in person, we proceeded with the motion.

Facts

[10] This proceeding is, at its heart, a dispute about a group of mining claims which were originally owned by the Plaintiff, Ronald Montreuil. The mining claims are for a potential garnet mine near Mattawa, Ontario. The Plaintiff alleges that he spent over $250,000.00 of his personal funds developing the mining claims.

[11] In September 2014, the Plaintiff approached his daughter and her husband, seeking their assistance to secure investors to develop the mining claims. After some discussions, a plan was created whereby Tammy Cross and Rodney Cross (the Plaintiff’s daughter and son-in-law), Marty Williams and Stan Bovey would, along with the Plaintiff, become shareholders in a corporation with a view to developing the mining claims into a viable mining project. William Sangster, a lawyer in North Bay, was retained to complete the legal work for the transaction, which took place in or about May and June 2015.

[12] Unfortunately, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the other shareholders quickly soured. The precise details of the breakdown of their relationship are not relevant for the purpose of this motion, so I will not include them here. Suffice it to say that both the Plaintiff and his business partners had concerns about the conduct of the other in attempting to develop the mining claims.

[13] On April 5, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a Statement of Claim against Tammy Cross, Rodney Cross, Marty Williams and Stan Bovey, seeking damages as well as an Order setting aside their transaction. Subsequently, William Sangster was added as a party to the proceeding; it is alleged that he failed to protect the interests of the Plaintiff in the transaction. The corporation in which the parties were shareholders, R.J.M. Garnets Inc., was also added as a Defendant. That claim was issued at North Bay under Court File No. CV-17-6731 (“the Main Claim”).

[14] The Plaintiff issued the Main Claim on his own behalf and has for the most part been self-represented in that proceeding. For a period of time, he received assistance from Matt Cohen and Ronald Manes through Pro Bono Ontario, but their involvement with him ended on or about March 11, 2019. The Defendants Rodney Cross, Marty Williams and Stan Bovey have been represented by Geoffrey LaPlante. The Defendant Tammy Cross has been represented by Jerry Herszkopf. The Defendant William Sangster has been represented by Gavin Tighe and Alexander Melfi. The corporate entity in which the parties are shareholders, R.J.M. Garnets Inc., is represented in the litigation by Wayne Stickland; John D’Agostino is corporate counsel for R.J.M. Garnets Inc.

[15] The Main Claim was extensively case managed by Justice Nadeau, who worked with the parties to attempt to negotiate a resolution of their dispute. Those efforts were discontinued on November 1, 2019, at which time Justice Nadeau endorsed that the matter had failed to resolve and that he was terminating Court-mediated negotiations.

[16] On December 12, 2019, the Plaintiff issued a Third Party Claim against several of the lawyers involved in the Main Claim. That Third Party Claim was subsequently struck by the Registrar as a procedural nullity and the Plaintiff was advised that he was required to proceed by way of Statement of Claim.

[17] On January 2, 2020, the Plaintiff issued a Statement of Claim against Larmer & Wayne Stickland, Geoffrey LaPlante, John D’Agostino and James Ireland (a mining consultant involved in the development of the claims). The claim was issued at North Bay under Court File No. CV-20-002-0000 (“the Second Claim”). It alleges that the Defendants have engaged in negligent and unlawful acts in providing services to the Defendants in the Main Action and to R.J.M. Garnets Inc., the corporation in which he is a shareholder.

[18] This motion seeks to address what can only be described as procedural “irregularities” with the Second Claim.

[19] The claim that was issued by the Plaintiff and which is currently in Court File No. CV-20-002-0000 names Larmer & Wayne Stickland, Geoffrey LaPlante, James Ireland and John D’Agostino as Defendants in the title of proceeding, but in the body of the claim makes allegations only against Wayne Stickland (identified as Larmer & Wayne Stickland).

[20] The Plaintiff has not served the issued claim contained in the Court File on the individual Defendants. Instead, it appears that he has cut and pasted portions of that document to create individual claims against each of the Defendants. None of the individual claims that he has prepared against the Defendants LaPlante, Ireland or D’Agostino form part of the Court File.

[21] These irregularities came to the attention of each of the Defendants when they were served with claims addressed to other Defendants. They have brought this motion seeking to require the Plaintiff to regularize the pleadings by preparing and serving one Statement of Claim containing the allegations against all of the Defendants.

The Law

[22] Pursuant to Rule 14.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, an Originating Process (in this case the Statement of Claim) must be issued under the seal of the Court, and a copy of that Originating Process must be retained in the Court File once it has been issued. Once an Originating Process has been issued, it can only be amended in accordance with Rule 26.

[23] Pursuant to Rule 25.03, an Originating Process must be served, in the form issued, on every party to a proceeding. Service must be effected within the timelines and in the manner prescribed in Rules 14.08 and 16. If an Originating Process is amended, it must be served on all parties to the proceeding and filed with the Court, pursuant to Rule 26.04.

Analysis

[24] The Plaintiff argues that the manner in which he has prepared the Statements of Claim against the individual Defendants makes them easier to address. From his perspective, the claims against each of the Defendants address what he believes to be criminal or quasi-criminal conduct by them. He submits that each of the claims is supported by thousands of pages of government documents. If the claims are addressed together, he believes that the evidence will be confusing, and that the trial will require weeks of Court time.

[25] The Plaintiff was asked by the Court what his position would be if the Rules required him to prepare a claim in the form requested by the Defendants. He advised that he would make the amendments requested by the Defendants if required to do so by the Court.

[26] The procedures provided in the Rules to issue, amend and serve an Originating Process are clear, uncontroverted and non-negotiable. There can be only one Statement of Claim. That Statement of Claim must contain all of the allegations against all of the Defendants named in the title of proceeding. The form of the Statement of Claim must comply with Rule 25. Once completed, the Statement of Claim must be served on all of the Defendants. The Statement of Claim that is served on the Defendants must be the same as the Statement of Claim that is issued by and filed with the Court.

[27] Regardless of the Plaintiff’s intentions, the Court is bound by the procedures provided in the Rules. By preparing and serving multiple versions of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Rules. The Plaintiff must rectify his non-compliance by taking steps to “regularize” his Statement of Claim.

[28] I am mindful of the fact that the Plaintiff is self-represented. I would provide the following directions to the Plaintiff to “regularize” his Statement of Claim:

a. The Plaintiff will prepare a new document called a “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim”.

b. The “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim” will join the allegations made against each of the Defendants into one document. The Plaintiff should identify each of the Defendants using a heading, and under those headings list the legal allegations against each Defendant and a brief summary of the facts supporting those allegations.

c. The Plaintiff is strongly advised to review the Claim prepared by Matthew Cohen and Ronald Manes in the Main Action and to try to craft his “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim” using the format and language of that document. If possible, the Plaintiff is also encouraged to consider seeking legal advice about the proper form and content of the “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim”.

d. Once completed, the Plaintiff must have the “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim” issued by the Court Office in North Bay.

e. Once issued by the Court Office, the Plaintiff must serve the “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim” on each of the Defendants named in the claim. I am also directing that he forward a courtesy copy of the Claim to the lawyers (if any) for each of those Defendants, either by fax or by email.

Additional Issue

[29] During his submissions, the Plaintiff suggested that he may bring proceedings against Peter Diavolitsis and his firm, Weaver Simmons, as counsel for Wayne Stickland. It was the Plaintiff’s view that, in bringing this motion, Weaver Simmons was conspiring with Mr. Stickland and was using fraud and misrepresentation to delay the litigation and to incite counsel for the other Defendants to do the same.

[30] I expressed my concerns to the Plaintiff that, if he continued to commence legal proceedings against the lawyers representing other parties to his proceedings, we would soon find ourselves awash in a sea of lawyers representing other lawyers. I noted that, in addition to exposing him to adverse costs awards or an application to have him designated as a vexatious litigant, this approach would only serve to cause further delay.

[31] Prior to issuing my decision on this motion, the Plaintiff did, in fact, issue a claim against Weaver Simmons. In doing so, the Plaintiff only served to underscore to me that limits need to be placed on his ability to add parties to these proceedings before we find ourselves faced with a Hydra and neither Hercules nor his golden sword in sight to slay it.

[32] I am mindful of the fact that there is no application before me seeking to have the Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43. I do not propose to undertake this extreme measure. It is my view, however, that as the Judge assigned to case manage these proceedings, and as a Judge with the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the Court’s process, I have the authority to impose limits on the Plaintiff’s ability to expand the scope of this litigation.

[33] It is therefore the direction of this Court that the Plaintiff may not issue or initiate any Originating Process, motion or other proceeding against any party or any lawyer representing a party in Court File Nos. CV-17-6731 or CV-20-002-0000 issued at North Bay, Ontario without leave of the case management Judge in these actions.

[34] I do not propose to put the Plaintiff to the time or the expense of bringing a motion whenever he wishes to seek leave. A request for leave can be initiated by the Plaintiff by submitting a written request to the Trial Co-Ordinator to schedule a Case Management Conference. That written request will include a brief summary of the proceeding that the Plaintiff wishes to initiate and the reason that he wishes to initiate it. The Plaintiff shall forward a copy of the written request to every party to the proceeding or, if applicable, to their counsel.

Orders

[35] For the reasons set out above, I hereby make the following Orders:

a. That the Plaintiff shall, on or before March 1, 2021, prepare and issue with the Court a “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim” which shall contain all of the allegations made against each of the Defendants. This document shall comply with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, c.C.194.

b. That the Plaintiff shall, on or before March 15, 2021, serve on each of the Defendants to this proceeding a copy of the “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim”. The Plaintiff shall also, either by fax or by email, provide a copy of the issued “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim” to the lawyers for each of the Defendants to this proceeding who are represented by counsel.

c. That the Defendants shall have thirty (30) days from the date of service of the “Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim” to serve and file a Statement of Defence.

d. That the Plaintiff is prohibited from issuing or initiating any Originating Process, motion or other proceeding against any party or any lawyer representing a party in Court File Nos. CV-17-6731 or CV-20-002-0000 issued at North Bay, Ontario without leave of the case management Judge in these actions.

e. That any request by the Plaintiff for leave to issue or initiate any Originating Process, motion or other proceeding shall be made at a Case Management Conference which may be scheduled as follows:

i. The Plaintiff shall submit the request to schedule a Case Management Conference in writing to the Trial Co-Ordinator.

ii. The Plaintiff’s written request will include a brief summary of the proceeding that the Plaintiff wishes to initiate and the reason that he wishes to initiate it.

iii. The Plaintiff will provide a copy of the written request to every party to the proceeding or, if applicable, to their counsel.

iv. Upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s written request, the Trial Co-Ordinator will schedule a Conference with the Case Management Judge on a date and time available to all parties or their counsel.

f. That the requirement that this Order be approved as to form and content is hereby dispensed with.

Costs

[36] The Defendants may make submissions with respect to costs on or before February 1, 2021. Each of their submissions shall be made in writing, and shall not exceed three pages, double-spaced.

[37] The Plaintiff may make responding submissions with respect to costs on or before February 15, 2021. The Plaintiff’s submissions shall be made in writing, and shall not exceed three pages, double-spaced.

[38] The Defendants may make reply submissions on or before February 22, 2021. The Defendants’ reply submissions shall be made in writing and shall not exceed one page, double-spaced.

Cullin, J.

Date: January 15, 2021