Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-89512 (Ottawa) DATE: 20220628

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: YVES CHEVALIER AND GEORGE BASMADJI, SCIENTIST, Plaintiffs -and- HEATHER J. WILLIAMS, SALLY A. GOMERY, JOSHUA GAUTHIER, TINA JOHNSON & OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES, Defendants

BEFORE: FL Myers J

COUNSEL: Mary Simms for the Ottawa Police Service Board Matthew Chung for all other defendants

READ: June 28, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The defendants ask the court to review the statement of claim in this action under Rule 2.1.01 (6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194.

[2] By order dated March 15, 1996, Plantana J. made an order against the Plaintiff George Basmadji under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, C c.43, prohibiting him from instituting further legal proceedings without leave of the court. The order has not been rescinded and Mr. Basmadji has not obtained leave to institute this action. See 2022 ONSC 2618.

[3] Rule 2.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

2.1.03 (1) If the court determines that a person who is subject to an order under subsection 140 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act has instituted or continued a proceeding without the order having been rescinded or leave granted for the proceeding to be instituted or continued, the court shall make an order staying or dismissing the proceeding.

[4] The provision is mandatory. Unlike Rules 2.1.01 and 2.1.02, there is no process for submissions to be sought from a plaintiff prior to an order being required. The action by Mr. Basmadji is therefore dismissed.

[5] As to the action by Mr. Chevalier, I have reviewed the statement of claim and have reason to be concerned that it may be frivolous, or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process as described in Rule 2.1.01 (1).

[6] The Plaintiffs sue two judges ostensibly for the crimes of obstruction of justice, criminal fraud, and criminal breach of trust. The crimes were allegedly committed by the judges in decisions that do not recognize the Plaintiffs’ claims against Public Guardian and Trustee under the Charter of Rights.

[7] The Plaintiffs also make allegations about the judges’ fitness to continue to serve in their judicial offices. The Plaintiffs also provide their views of Canadian democracy.

[8] The other individual defendants are court officials. They are sued for “failing to provide the ‘victims of crimes/Plaintiffs’ with the support & services they needed” in relation to the Plaintiffs’ court proceedings.

[9] “Frivolous” proceedings are lawsuits that cannot possibly succeed. “Vexatious” lawsuits are brought to vex or to harass the defendants, . “Abuse of process” is a broader concept that includes re-litigating matters that have already been decided and other abusive use of court proceedings.

[10] It appears to me that the current lawsuit may have elements of all three types of abusive proceedings. The two judges sued are protected by judicial immunity. They cannot be sued for their decisions. In addition, there is no basis to sue someone for committing a crime. Mr. Chevalier also has no standing or entitlement to bring a lawsuit about a judge’s fitness to serve or about Canadian democracy.

[11] The claim against court officials for failing to provide support to victims of criminal acts is also likely frivolous or vexatious. It is predicated on labelling the judges’ decisions or the PGT’s acts, “crimes” and it postulates a duty that does not exist in law.

[12] The Ottawa Police Service Board was a party to the original proceeding before Plantana J. It has been sued before by the Plaintiffs related to the same events. This claim would appear therefore to be an abuse of process.

[13] I am also concerned that the plaintiffs may be bringing frivolous or vexatious proceedings under a fee waiver granted under the Administration of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c A.6.

[14] In my view the Plaintiff Yves Chevalier should be called upon to make written submissions as to why his claim should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 (1) and why his fee waiver should not be cancelled under s. 4.10 (a) of the Administration of Justice Act - both on the basis that this proceeding is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process.

[15] I do not call for fee waiver submissions from Mr. Basmadji because he has already been prohibited from commencing lawsuits without first obtaining the permission of a judge. Whether he obtains a fee waiver or not, he must not commence any further lawsuits except with permission of a judge obtained in accordance with s. 140 (3) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 38.13 of Rules of Civil Procedure.

[16] Mr. Basmadji is reminded that failure to obey the order made against him by Plantana J. may amount to a contempt of court. Mr. Basmadji must stop bringing lawsuits except in accordance with s. 140 (3) of the Courts of Justice Act and with leave obtained under Rule 38.13.

[17] I therefore make the following orders:

a. The action by George Basmadji is dismissed;

b. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the Registrar is directed to give notice to the Plaintiff Yves Chevalier in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under subrule 2.1.01(1) dismissing his action against all of the defendants;

c. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1.01(3) or further order of the court, the claim by Yves Chevalier is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act;

d. The Registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only Yves Chevalier’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3); and

e. In his submissions under Rule 2.1.01 (3) Mr. Chevalier shall also provide any submissions that he wishes to make under s. 4.10 (4) of the Administration of Justice Act as to why his fee waiver should not be revoked under s. 4.10 (1) of the statute.

[18] Costs of Mr. Basmadji’s action are reserved to a process to be set out in the next endorsement in the remaining action.

FL Myers J

Date: June 28, 2022