Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00652528

DATE: 2021-06-28

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: JACK OLIVEIRA AND LUIS CAMARA ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF LABOURERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183 Plaintiffs

and

MARIO OLIVEIRA, Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

and

JACK OLIVEIRA AND LUIS CAMARA ON THEIR 0WN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF LABOURERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183, All MEMBERS OF LOCAL 183 (LOCAL 183), JACK OLIVEIRA, LUIS CAMARA, NELSON MELO, JOHN EVAN JOSEPH MANCINELLI, JOHN OCCBIALIN'9 MARCO ANTONIO RINCON CRUZ, MICHAEL WRIGHT, YOUSSEF KODSY, WRIGHT HENRY LLP; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA, MINISTRY OF THE ATIOURNEY GENERAL, Hon. DAVID LAMETTI, Hon. DOUG DOWNEY, Hon. FILOMENA TASSI, TORONTO POLICE SERVICE,CAMERON ROSS, PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS (To be named), Defendants by Counterclaim

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

COUNSEL: Insiyah Kanjee for the defendant counterclaim Hon. Doug Downey and for Hon. Monte McNaughton

READ: June 26, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

Background

[1] The plaintiff union local sues Mr. Mario Oliveira as a result of the alleged release by the defendant of confidential information wrongfully taken from the union.

[2] Mario Oliveira has defended and commenced a counterclaim against union officials and others whom he alleges are engaged in pervasive, corrupt, criminal acts generally and directed against him specifically.

[3] Counsel for the defendant by counterclaim Hon. Doug Downey requested the court consider dismissing this action against him under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194. The matter was therefore forwarded to me by the registrar under Rule 2.1.01(7).

[4] The request was also made on behalf of Hon. Monte McNaughton. He is not named as a defendant by counterclaim in the version of the counterclaim that is in the court’s file. However, counsel has provided a different version of the counterclaim that has apparently been served by the plaintiff by counterclaim that purports to name Hon. Monte McNaughton and others.

[5] Unless or until the counterclaim and title of proceeding are properly amended under Rules 5 and 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it is only the version filed with the court that can be before the court for review. The document that Mario Oliveira may have served is not yet a proper claim in this lawsuit as far as I can tell.

[6] There are no allegations of fact pleaded against Hon. Doug Downey in the counterclaim. Under Rule 25.06 (1), claims must contain a concise statement of the facts alleged against each defendant to put them on notice of why they are being sued. The allegations of fact must state a basis on which the plaintiff by counterclaim may be entitled to a judgment against each defendant if the facts alleged are later proven to be true at a trial. As no allegations at all are made against Mr. Downey, it appears that the counterclaim against him may be frivolous i.e. bound to fail.

[7] Although the request to review the counterclaim was made only by counsel for Hon. Doug Downey, to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and repetitive reviews as each defendant in the counterclaim comes forward, at my own initiative under Rule 2.1.01, I reviewed the counterclaim to consider whether it may be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face in relation to the claims against other defendants by counterclaim. P.Y. v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 6660, aff’d 2021 ONCA 248,

[8] Without commenting on the proprietary of the scope or drafting of the counterclaim, it is apparent that on its face it pleads facts supporting several causes of action against union officials and others connected to the union including the torts of intimidation, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of mental distress. Whether the pleading states a reasonable cause of action or is sufficient to meet the standards of pleading under Rule 25 may be issues for a motion. But Rule 2.1 is not engaged.

[9] However, I am concerned that the Mario Oliveira may have overreached. The pleadings against the Department of Justice, do not appear to be a basis for a civil claim. Moreover, like Hon. Doug Downey, there is nothing at all pleaded against the defendants by counterclaim: Ministry of the Attorney General, Hon. David Lametti, Hon. Filomena Tassi, Toronto Police Service, Cameron Ross, Private Investigations (To Be Named).

[10] The plaintiff should therefore be called upon to make written submissions of up to ten pages to explain why the case should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) against all of the defendants by counterclaim listed in the preceding paragraph (including Mr. Downey) for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

[11] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, I therefore make the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the plaintiff by counterclaim in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under subrule 2.1.01(1) dismissing the action against Hon. Doug Downey and all of the defendants by counterclaim named in para. 9 above;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1.01(3) or further order of the court, the counterclaim against Hon. Doug Downey and all the defendants by counterclaim named in para. 9 above 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 counterclaim as against the Hon. Doug Downey and all defendants by counterclaim named in para. 9 above excepting only the plaintiffs’ written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

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

F.L. Myers J.

Release Date: June 28, 2021