Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00629625; CV-18-00601954 DATE: 20210602

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Tammy MacLeod (nee Laronde), by her Litigation Guardian William Dale MacLeod and William Dale MacLeod AND: Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, McMaster University Medical Centre (McMaster Children’s Hospital)

William Dale MacLeod AND: Toronto Catholic District School Board, et al.

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Chalmers

COUNSEL: W. MacLeod, self-represented and for Tammy MacLeod N. Hassan and E. Sanderson for the Defendant, McMaster University Medical Centre and Hamilton Health Sciences C. Jenkins, for Native Child and Family Service of Toronto B. Clarke for the Defendant Toronto District School Board S. Metzler for the Defendant Toronto Catholic District School Board S. Murtha for the Defendant York University L. Mapplebeck for the Defendant Hamilton Wentworth School Board N. Fitz and S. Vavougious for the Defendant Ryerson University A. Harper for the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”)

HEARD: June 2, 2021 by teleconference

Endorsement

[1] At the case conference on April 7, 2021, the motion to determine the legal capacity of William MacLeod was scheduled for June 25, 2021 and a timetable was established. The motions are brought by the Hamilton Health Sciences in the McMaster Action (CV-19-00629625) and Wentworth District School Board in the TCDSB Action (CV-18-00601954). The case conference was scheduled for today to determine if there were any issues with respect to the timetable and in particular, to address any issues that may arise from the examinations.

[2] On May 31, 2021, Mr. MacLeod sent a letter to me with a copy to the other parties in the action. He states that there are a number of matters that must be dealt with before or at the capacity motion. A copy of the letter is attached to this endorsement at Tab A. I am of the view that the issues raised by Mr. MacLeod are issues that can be raised by him at the motion. There is no need to arrange a separate hearing to consider the issues.

[3] Mr. MacLeod and counsel advise that the steps set out in the timetable have taken place. The cross-examinations were in writing. No issues arose during the cross-examinations that require my attention at this time. All parties agree that we are on track for the hearing on June 25, 2021.

[4] The parties are to file their materials for use on the motion in Caselines. The parties are referred to the attached checklist that summarizes the processes to file documents with the court and then to upload them to Caselines for use at the hearing. If Mr. MacLeod has difficulty in filing materials online, he may also send the materials to my assistant, Anna Maria Tiberio.

[5] As the case management judge, I remain seized of this matter.

DATE: JUNE 2, 2021

TAB A

William Dale MacLeod #315-25 Mabelle Avenue Etobicoke, Ontario, M9A4Y1 437-324-2077, william.macleod@ryerson.ca

To: The Honourable Justice Chalmers Superior Court of Justice 330 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario

[Forwarded to all parties by email]

Preceding the issue of the motions scheduled to be heard June 25 2021, I would reasonably believe that the following issues would have to be determined before the motions could [or should] be heard:

First, is whether the plaintiff/applicant is liable for any acts, errors or omissions that were committed before eighteen years of age, as defined, or reasoned in §1.03, §7.02 and §7.04(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (or other relevant and similar rules of courts and tribunals) and as proscribed in the Age of Majority and Accountability Act.

• This is on the primary facet that the registrar(s) knew, by presentation of identification to affirm fee waiver affidavits, that any filing between May and November 3 2015 at 23:59:59 would be subject to automatic dismissal as they were filed by a minor unless capacity is presumed to be present in a seventeen-year-old.
• This would also mean that the plaintiff/applicant would not be subject to the decisions in the matters outlined in the Plaintiff/Applicant Affidavits in the Vexatious and Frivolous Proceedings pleadings at sub-pleas one and two.
• This would also mean that any decision on them cannot [presumably] be used as evidence against the plaintiff/applicant.’

Second, is whether the plaintiff/applicant is liable for any acts, errors or omissions that were “transferred” to the Public Guardian and Trustee, when the Public Guardian and Trustee became Statutory Guardian.

Third, is whether the plaintiff/applicant, as was found to be incapable (or presumed incapable), should be responsible for any consequences of decisions on the cases pled in sub-plea number three and four. If the plaintiff/applicant was persistently presumed incapable, then should any filing by subject to average scrutinization?

Fourth, is whether the plaintiff/applicant is truly incapable and whether incapacity was fuelled by now addressed trauma and mental anguish. We know that the plaintiff/applicant has filed before the court, or attempted to file, claim(s) that outline the tort and negligence endured by the plaintiff/applicant in state care and that this could have clouded the plaintiff/applicant.

Fifth, is whether it is necessary, or correct, to utilise a persons’ childhood history in such a way that it revictimizes the plaintiff/applicant and subjects them to more mental anguish.

Sixth, is whether it is to the plaintiffs/applicants avail to pursue to motion to vacate the existing motions on the premise of faulty evidence, erroneous and/or out-of-context pleadings and any other misinterpretations or to alleviate the issue of mental anguish caused by this ableist process.

Seventh, is whether the plaintiff/applicant would be subject to [or is victim to] the following:

• Control by the Provincial Government, or an office of the provincial government, as defined, which violates §91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867-1982 and violates their right to self-determination pursuant to §25 of the Charter. Would this also violate the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and interfere in indigenous processes?
• Discrimination, to which the use of pre-existing disabilities and childhood trauma against a person to interfere in equal access to justice is so gross and negligent that it violates the basic premise of §15 of the Charter.
• Defamation of Character, which, given that for six years the plaintiffs/applicants capacity was persistently questioned, and it being publicly available and known., would interfere in the plaintiffs/applicants’ career options and thereby cause economic deficit as a result. This excludes the knowledge of the absolute privilege defence.

Kind Regards,

William Dale MacLeod May 31 2021 0943 hours

REQUIRED STEPS CHECKLIST

STEP	HOW	CHECK MARK IF DONE
File documents and pay all fees	File your documents and pay fees using the Civil Submissions Online portal https://www.ontario.ca/page/file-civil-claim-online. If your matter is urgent or you are filing documents for a court date or deadline that is fewer than 5 business days away, e-mail your documents to the court office at : Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca> Documents submitted to the court in electronic format must be named in accordance with the Superior Court’s Standard Document Naming Protocol, which can be found in section C.8 of the Consolidated Notice to the Profession, Litigants, Accused Persons, Public and the Media at: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19/consolidated-notice/#8_Standard_document_naming_protocol See new Rule 4.05.2 Ensure your e-mail address is on all documents filed.
30 DAYS BEFORE HEARING	E-mail Motions Co-ordinator 30 days prior to the motion or application hearing date about the status of the motion or application including names, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all counsel and/or self-represented parties. After this is done, the parties will receive an e-mail from CaseLines saying it is ready to use. Send e-mail to: LongMotionsStatus.Judge@ontario.ca
AT LEAST ONE WEEK BEFORE HEARING	Upload materials to CaseLines including all Motion Records, Factums, and the requested Draft Order or Judgment. Upload your factum and draft Order or Judgment in WORD format. See new Rule 4.05.3 Ensure you e-mail address is on all documents filed. For more information about CaseLines, including answers to frequently asked questions, refer to Supplementary Notice to the Profession and Litigants in Civil and Family Matters – Including Electronic Filings and Document Sharing (CaseLines Pilot) September 2, 2020; updated December 17, 2020 found at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19/supplementary-notice-september-2-2020/
Confer with opposing counsel and e-mail Motion Confirmation form to Motions Co-ordinator	For motions, see: Rule 37.10.1 and Form 37B. For applications, see: Rule 38.09.1(1) and Form 38B. Send email to: LongMotionsStatus.Judge@ontario.ca
SHORTLY BEFORE HEARING	Upload Compendiums. For all oral motions and applications upload a Compendium to CaseLines at any time before the hearing which contain the excerpted portions of the cases and evidence which the parties intend to rely upon. Counsel and self-represented parties should familiarize themselves with the CaseLines-generated page numbering on uploaded documents for ease in directing the judge to specific pages. See e-mail from CaseLines
Upload any amended requested Draft Order or Judgment into CaseLines	See uploading instructions in the Frequently Asked Questions About CaseLines at: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19/supplementary-notice-september-2-2020/faq-caselines/
Exchange costs outlines not exceeding 3 pages in length	See Rule 57.01(6) and Form 57B
AFTER THE HEARING	Upload the costs outlines to CaseLines if there have been no Rule 49 Offers to Settle. If there have been Rule 49 Offers to Settle, then costs outlines should be dealt with in the manner directed by the Motions or Applications Judge