COURT FILE NO.: 58915/19
DATE: 20210607
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: LLOYD PATRICK DETTERING, Plaintiff
AND:
ST. CATHARINE TRANSIT COMMISSION, COMMISSIONAIRES HAMILTON, and REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA POLICE SERVICES BOARD, Defendants
BEFORE: Justice Robert Reid
COUNSEL: Plaintiff - self-represented
J. Matunin-Brown, Counsel, for the Defendant St. Catharine Transit Commission
T. Zdravkovic, Counsel, for the Defendant Commissionaires Hamilton
M. Cruickshank, Counsel, for the Defendant Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board
HEARD: March 3, 2021
Corrected Decision – June 8, 2021: Counsel for the Defendant Commissionaires Hamilton is changed from M. Wilson to T. Zdravkovic. No change to content.
decision on motions
[1] All three of the defendants have asked the court to end Mr. Dettering’s lawsuit against them. They say that there is no need to have a trial because even if the things that Mr. Dettering says happened did happen, it would not be enough for him to win the case.
How the requests were heard:
[2] The lawyers wanted to speak to the court from other places, through a Zoom link. Mr. Dettering asked to speak to the court in person. The court agreed to both requests.
[3] Each defendant filed an affidavit to describe the reasons why they wanted the court to end the lawsuit. They also filed their summaries of the case and the law, called a “factum”, and referred to other legal cases to help me make a decision. Copies of those things were given to Mr. Dettering in advance. Mr. Dettering filed an affidavit telling me his position.
[4] In court, Mr. Dettering was provided with a device to assist his hearing. The device was checked and seemed to be working. In court, Mr. Dettering said he could hear me, but could not understand the lawyers who were not in the courtroom.
[5] To solve the problem, the lawyers agreed that I could make a decision without hearing from them personally, using only the papers they provided. Mr. Dettering was asked to give me his comments in person. He chose not to and asked me to use his affidavit instead.
[6] Because everyone agreed, my decision is based only on the papers that were filed.
The Background:
[7] On April 29, 2019, Mr. Dettering went to the bus terminal in downtown St. Catharines. He asked a ticket seller if he could speak to a certain employee of the Transit Commission because he wanted to make a complaint[^1]. He was told that person was not available. Mr. Dettering then asked if the ticket seller was gay or a faggot.
[8] The Transit Commission has rules against bad language and conduct on its property. The rules are on display in the bus terminal.
[9] Because of his use of bad language, the ticket seller prepared a “Trespass Notice”, which was then given to Mr. Dettering by a security guard who worked for Commissionaires Hamilton. The Transit Commission employs Commissionaires Hamilton to provide security services.
[10] The notice told Mr. Dettering that he was not allowed back onto Transit Commission property and that if he came back, he could be arrested and charged with trespassing. It did not contain reasons.
The Court Case:
The facts:
[11] On May 3, 2019, Mr. Dettering came to the bus terminal. At about 4:53 p.m., a security guard asked him to leave because he was trespassing. He did not leave. After warning Mr. Dettering, the security guard called the police, but then Mr. Dettering got onto a bus and left the terminal. The police were told they were not needed.
[12] On the same day at about 6:44 p.m., Mr. Dettering came back to the bus terminal. Again, a security guard asked him to leave. He did not leave. The police were called. They also told him he was trespassing. He refused to leave. They lifted him up, he fell (or slumped to the ground), “hurting his shin a bit” but not causing any bruise. To quote Mr. Dettering in his reply, “Only my dignity was hurt”. The police then escorted him out because he was not allowed to be there.
[13] Since Mr. Dettering was not allowed to wait in the terminal, the police offered to drive him home, but he said no. He walked to the market square bus stop several blocks away and waited for his bus there.
[14] The Trespass Notice against Mr. Dettering was not displayed in public. It included his name. It did not include details of his bad language.
[15] Mr. Dettering sued the Transit Commission, the police, and the security company.
[16] Although not directly related to the facts of his claim, Mr. Dettering believes he was prevented from doing legal research on the internet to help his case because of long-standing interference by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”). He believes he is constantly monitored by CSIS through his eyes and through a metal object in his right great toe.
[17] Also, he believes he is suffering premature aging from electromagnetism and its radiation, which has been coming to him since 2001 from someone or somewhere that he does not know. He feels that not being able to wait for buses in the bus terminal is causing him irreparable harm.
The Claims:
[18] Mr. Dettering has referred to several legal words in making his claim. He talks about assault, breach of contract, defamation, nuisance and public mischief. Each of those words or phrases can be the basis of a successful claim, if there are facts to back them up.
The Rules:
[19] Everyone who comes to court must follow the Rules of Civil Procedure[^2]. The rules make sure that everyone is treated fairly. They apply to those who make claims, and to those who respond to claims.
[20] Mr. Dettering’s statement of claim and reply are written as a story. That is not the proper way to set out a claim. The rules require that when someone sues someone else, there must be a concise statement of material facts upon which the party relies, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. In this case, even though the statement of claim does not follow the rules, the story does help the court make a decision about how to handle the defendants’ requests. It helps to give me a full appreciation for Mr. Dettering’s claim, taken together with his affidavit, so that I can make a decision that is fair to everyone.
[21] A case that may be successful should be allowed to come to trial for a decision. A case that is very weak should be weeded out before taking up court time that could be used by other cases.
[22] In this case, Commissionaires Hamilton, the St. Catharine Transit Commission, and the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board all ask this court to end the lawsuit against them by Mr. Dettering because the claim is too weak and there is no need for a trial.
[23] To make a decision, the court must look at the affidavits filed by each of the defendants. The court must also look at the statement of claim and the reply from Mr. Dettering and his affidavit. His job is to give the court enough information to show that his case deserves to go to trial.
Commissionaires Hamilton:
[24] There is nothing to show that the security guard for Commissionaires Hamilton did anything wrong on May 3, 2019. The trespass notice was not posted or shown to anyone other than, perhaps, the police. There was no physical contact between the security guard and Mr. Dettering, and no threat of contact. There was no contract between Mr. Dettering and the security guard to be breached. There are no facts in the claim or the reply that show a nuisance or mischief in the way the law requires.
[25] Mr. Dettering admits in paragraph 15 of his reply that he has no real claim against Commissionaires Hamilton:
I have only included Commissionaires Hamilton because their security guard was only performing his contractual duties by calling the police as required by the St. Catharines Transit Commission. My claims are really against the Transit Commission and the Niagara Regional Police Services Board.
[26] The claim against Commissionaires Hamilton is dismissed.
St. Catharine Transit Commission:
[27] Defamation is the only possible claim that Mr. Dettering has against the Transit Commission. There was no contract between him and the Transit Commission that could have been breached. There was no physical contact that could have been an assault between him and a Transit Commission agent. Nuisance and public mischief do not fit this situation.
[28] To make a successful claim for defamation, Mr. Dettering must show that the trespass notice would tend to lower his reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. He must also show that there was a publication of the notice.
[29] Nowhere does Mr. Dettering say that his reputation was affected by the trespass notice.
[30] Nowhere does Mr. Dettering say that the notice was published to anyone beyond himself other than possibly the security guards involved.
[31] Even if there was publication and an effect on Mr. Dettering’s reputation, the Transit Commission may rely on certain defences.
[32] One defence to defamation is called “justification”. That means the Transit Commission can say that the publication was true. If the Commission can prove that the contents of the notice were true, it has a defence. Here, Mr. Dettering has admitted that he said the words to the ticket seller which led to issuing the notice. The notice itself simply tells him not to be on Commission property.
[33] For this motion, I accept the facts set out by Mr. Dettering in the statement of claim and the reply. He has told his story. He was angry with a bus driver or drivers which led to him using bad language to the ticket seller. Because he does not say that his reputation was affected, and because he does not say that the notice was published to any member of the public, he does not have a claim for defamation that needs a trial. As well, the Commission has a good defence: the facts contained in the notice were true and the facts leading to the notice were also true, as Mr. Dettering has admitted.
[34] The claim against the St. Catharine Transit Commission is dismissed.
Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board:
[35] Assault is the only possible claim against the Niagara Police Services Board. There was no contract to be breached between Mr. Dettering and police. There was no defamation, since the police did not make the notice or publish any information about it. Public mischief and nuisance do not fit this situation.
[36] An assault may happen when someone uses force against someone else, or threatens to do so, in a way that makes the person afraid they will be hurt.
[37] Mr. Dettering admits that he had been given a trespass notice. He admits that he would not leave the terminal willingly when asked by the police. It is an offence to trespass and the police have the power to arrest a trespasser under the Trespass to Property Act[^3]. The police decided not to arrest Mr. Dettering. Instead, they escorted him out of the bus terminal.
[38] The law allows the police to “use as much force as necessary” to do what they are legally allowed to do.[^4]
[39] The police used only as much force as necessary to remove Mr. Dettering from the bus terminal. He was not hurt. They were courteous in offering him a ride home. He said no. Mr. Dettering may have been upset and angry with the Transit Commission, but I think he knew that the police were only doing their job.
[40] Under those circumstances, no assault occurred. The claim against the Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board is dismissed.
Leave to Amend:
[41] When a court decides to dismiss a claim because it does not contain enough information to justify a trial, it may decide to give the person a chance to correct the problems. In that case, the person could add further facts that might correct the problems.
[42] I mentioned that Mr. Dettering was able to tell his story through the statement of claim and reply. He put in all the information that he thought was important. He was very clear about what happened. The problem is that the story does not support the legal claims that he wants to make. It would be a waste of his time for Mr. Dettering to make some amendments which would not change the result. It would be a waste of time for the Commission, the Police and Commissionaires Hamilton to have to respond and, eventually, bring another motion like these to have the claim struck out again.
[43] I have decided that this matter should end now. There will be no leave to amend.
Conclusion:
[44] I can make a final decision before trial in a case where it is fair to do so, and where there is really no need for a trial. I am satisfied in this case that I have a full understanding of the claim. I am also satisfied that to end the case now, before more time and costs are spent by everyone is a just result. There is no genuine issue requiring a trial between Mr. Dettering and any of the defendants.
[45] Mr. Dettering knows from many previous claims in this court, some of which have been dealt with by me, that just because he holds strong views does not mean that he is entitled to use the resources of the court to take matters to trial where they have no chance of succeeding.
Costs:
[46] When someone wins in court, they may ask the court to order that some or all of their legal fees be paid by the person who lost. In part, this is to make sure that people who come to court – either to make a claim or to defend against a claim – behave properly.
[47] In this case, the three defendants have been successful. I will give them a chance to tell me, in writing, whether they want me to order costs to be paid by Mr. Dettering, and I will then give him a chance to tell me what he wants me to do about the costs.
[48] Everyone needs to follow the following schedule:
• Each of the St. Catharine Transit Commission, Commissionaires Hamilton, and Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board are to serve Mr. Dettering with any request for costs, in writing, in no more than five pages plus their Bills of Costs on or before June 18, 2021.
• Mr. Dettering is to serve the others with his response to their requests, in writing, in no more than five pages on or before July 2, 2021.
• Each of the St. Catharine Transit Commission, Commissionaires Hamilton, and Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board are to serve Mr. Dettering with any responses on or before July 16, 2021.
[49] All submissions on costs are to be filed with the court no later than July 19, 2021. If submissions are not received by that date, or any agreed extension, the matter of costs will be deemed settled.
Reid J.
Date: June 7, 2021
[^1]: Mr. Dettering had concerns about how he had been treated by one or more bus drivers on prior occasions.
[^2]: R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194
[^3]: R.S.O. 1990, c. T. 21, s.9(1)
[^4]: Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 146, and Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. c. C-46, s. 25.