Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-663204-0000 DATE: 2021-07-13

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Gary David Brown a.k.a. Gary David Robert Brown, Station Attendant Emeritus AND: The University of Toronto, The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, The Office of the President of the University of Toronto, The Department of Computer Science at the University of Toronto and, but without limitation, all past and present assigns and agents thereof and all heirs and successors of same (“University of Toronto”, “U of T”)

BEFORE: J.T. Akbarali J. HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

[1] On June 22, 2021, I released an endorsement directing the registrar to send notice in form 2.1A to the plaintiff advising that the court was considering dismissing this action under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. I indicated that it was not clear whether the defendant(s) were intended to be a single defendant, named in multiple ways, or multiple defendants, but that, in any event, I would exercise my discretion to consider the entirety of the claim under r. 2.1. My endorsement is reported at 2021 ONSC 4488.

[2] Although invited to file submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, the plaintiff has not done so. The time to do so has now expired.

[3] Rule 2.1 allows a court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if it appears, on its face, to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. It does not apply to close calls: Gao v WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6100, at para. 9.

[4] In my view, it is appropriate to dismiss this claim under r. 2.1.

[5] The statement of claim consists of five pages of relief sought, much of which is declaratory and repetitive, geared towards a declaration condemning the behaviour of the defendant(s) which is claimed to have allowed some unknown party to use some computer equipment or network at the University of Toronto to hack the plaintiff. The statement of claim then includes a page defining the parties. There is a half a page of “background”, most of which is about what computers are. One paragraph alleges that twice in January 2019, Microsoft recorded that the University of Toronto had hacked into the plaintiff’s computer. The claim then pleads that the defendant(s) are vicariously liable for any party who accessed their computer to hack the plaintiff’s computer, and pleads that the defendants acted in bad faith.

[6] The plaintiff has failed to plead material facts as he is required to do by r. 25.06(1). The limited facts alleged do not support a tenable cause of action. For example, there are no specifics alleged about who hacked the plaintiff, why the defendants had a duty to the plaintiff, how the defendants breached their duty, how the defendants’ actions caused the plaintiff’s loss, what damages the plaintiff suffered, or what bad faith conduct the defendants engaged in. There is no pleading that the defendant(s) have any relationship with the plaintiff at all.

[7] The duplication of the relief sought is indicative of an unfocused, vexatious claim. Moreover, the claim includes the text of an apology letter the plaintiff seeks from the University of Toronto “on behalf of all past and present alumni, beneficiaries, faculties, officers, directors and governors, etc.,” among others, in which the plaintiff seeks the defendants admit they were derelict in their “collective or alleged or any duties,” admit negligence, and that they illegally hacked the plaintiff. The inclusion of the sweeping apology letter in the claim is another indication of a vexatious, unfocused claim that is not grounded in any causes of action that are supported by material facts.

[8] In these circumstances, I dismiss this action under r. 2.1.

J.T. Akbarali J.

Date: July 13, 2021