Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-3510
DATE: 2021 01 26
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Milos Randjelovic, Plaintiff
AND:
Jesse Danchuk, John Dibski and Nick Chiera, Defendants
BEFORE: Conlan J.
COUNSEL: Milos Randjelovic, Self-Represented
D. Smith and S. Bonanno, for Jesse Danchuk
I. Kanjee, for John Dibski and Nick Chiera
HEARD: In writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Counsel for the Defendants submitted to the Court written requests to have the Plaintiff’s Claim dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”). Set out below are 2.1.01(1) through (7) of the Rules.
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
Summary Procedure
(2) The court may make a determination under subrule (1) in a summary manner, subject to the procedures set out in this rule. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under subrule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures:
The court shall direct the registrar to give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, that the court is considering making the order.
The plaintiff or applicant may, within 15 days after receiving the notice, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the notice.
If the plaintiff or applicant does not file a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may make the order without any further notice to the plaintiff or applicant or to any other party.
If the plaintiff or applicant files a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may direct the registrar to give a copy of the submission to any other party.
A party who receives a copy of the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission may, within 10 days after receiving the copy, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission, and shall give a copy of the responding submission to the plaintiff or applicant and, on the request of any other party, to that party. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
(4) A document required under subrule (3) to be given to a party shall be mailed in the manner described in subclause 16.01 (4) (b) (i), and is deemed to have been received on the fifth day after it is mailed. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
Copy of Order
(5) The registrar shall serve a copy of the order by mail on the plaintiff or applicant as soon as possible after the order is made. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
Request for Order
(6) Any party to the proceeding may file with the registrar a written request for an order under subrule (1). O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
Notification of Court by Registrar
(7) If the registrar becomes aware that a proceeding could be the subject of an order under subrule (1), the registrar shall notify the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
[2] This Court invited and has now received and reviewed written submissions from the Plaintiff, Mr. Randjelovic, in response to the said requests.
[3] Attached as Schedule “A” to this Endorsement is an electronic copy of the Statement of Claim, in its entirety. Mr. Randjelovic’s written submissions are in a similar vein.
[4] I surmise that the Defendant Danchuk is a police officer, and the Defendants Dibski and Chiera are Crown prosecutors. I think that there is, or was, some criminal proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice that involves/involved Mr. Randjelovic. There is some sort of an allegation by Mr. Randjelovic that Danchuk uttered a forged document and trespassed upon the Plaintiff’s property. The particulars are unknown, or at least unspecified. There is some sort of an allegation by Mr. Randjelovic that the prosecutors have been complicit (my word) in the wrongdoing, perhaps by having had some involvement in the criminal proceeding. The details are unknown, or at least unspecified.
[5] Fairly recently, in Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320, at paragraph 15, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated as follows:
[15] We reiterate that judges should be cautious about allowing parties to have recourse to r. 2.1 except where it is plain and obvious on the face of the pleading that the action is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. There are many other remedies provided for in the Rules of Civil Procedure by which parties can deal with cases that are not clear on the face of the pleading.
[6] Mr. Randjelovic is an intelligent man; he spoke well during our teleconference, and his language skills are impressive. I am not sure why he wants to make things difficult for himself by choosing to file documents that are incomprehensible, indefensible, and incapable of coherent response thereto. What is the point of having to force a Defence that says “I have no idea what you’re talking about”? What else could any of these three Defendants say?
[7] I respect Mr. Randjelovic’s right to have his beliefs. I have attempted to show him courtesy and politeness, and he in turn has been polite with the Court. His Claim, however, is dismissed under Rule 2.1. It is frivolous and an abuse of process, no matter how narrowly or strict one interprets the Rule.
[8] It would appear that very little costs would have been incurred to date by any of the Defendants, but if counsel wish they may contact the trial office in Milton to request an opportunity to address costs, on proper notice to Mr. Randjelovic.
(“Original signed by”)
Conlan J.
Date: January 26, 2021
SCHEDULE “A”