Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-89512 (Ottawa)
DATE: 20220718
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 Yves Chevalier and George Basmadji, Scientist representing themselves.
READ: July 18, 2022
ENDORSEMENT
[1] For reasons set out in my Endorsement dated June 28, 2022, reported at 2022 ONSC 3847, I directed the registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff Yves Chevalier under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 and under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c A.6.
[2] I have now reviewed written submissions dated July 8, 2022 provided by both plaintiffs.
[3] I did not invite submissions from the plaintiff George Basmadji, Scientist because I dismissed his claim already. He has previously been prohibited from commencing lawsuits without first obtaining permission or leave of a judge to do so. Under Rule 2.1.03 (1), where a plaintiff against whom such an order has been made commences a proceeding without permission having been obtained, the court is required to stay or dismiss the proceeding.
[4] In their written material, the plaintiffs submit that the defendants deliberately violated their rights under the Charter of Rights. They assert that judicial immunity does not apply in such a case brought under s. 24 (1) of the Charter. They submit that accountability for abuse of power in a public office is vital in a democracy.
[5] The plaintiffs’ written submission continues:
3- Both Plaintiffs are suing the defendants for Constitutional Rights’ violation!
4- An injunction is included in the Plaintiffs’ Claim who are seeking protection.
5- In this case, Frederick L. Myers has failed to support the Canadian Constitution!
6- Also in this case, Frederick L. Myers was clearly untrustworthy, incompetent, & irrational who suffers from mental deficiency!
7- Law enforcement officials are trained to protect Constitutional Rights!
8- In this case, the police failed to protect both Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights!
9- Stupid lawyers & policemen are dangerous because of their unreasonable behaviour. [Emphasis in original.]
[6] Accountability for erroneous judicial decisions is provided through the appellate process. Available remedies for breach of the Charter of Rights do not include claims against judges personally arising from their decisions. Mr. Chevalier had and may still have a right of appeal from any decision with which he disagrees.
[7] The plaintiffs’ submissions do not address the other issues raised in my prior endorsement involving the claims against the police and the court officer defendants.
[8] In my view, this action meets the tests set out in Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733. The proposed claims are frivolous in that they cannot succeed. They demonstrate the indicia of vexatiousness discussed in Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497. Requiring the defendants to plead or to bring a motion would just perpetuate the plaintiffs’ abusive conduct.
[9] Moreover, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to revoke Mr. Chevalier’s fee waiver under s. 4.10 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act. Fee waivers provide access to justice for litigants who might otherwise be unable to afford to pay court fees. There is no point however enhancing access to the court for frivolous and vexatious claims and claimants. In fact, allowing frivolous or vexatious claims to proceed impairs access to justice by taking up scarce resources that are needed for legitimate claims made by bona fide claimants.
[10] In light of his joinder in common cause in this action with a declared vexatious litigant, I am concerned that Mr. Chevalier may try again. Therefore, under s. 4.10 (5) of the Administration of Justice Act, I prohibit Mr. Chevalier from making any further requests for a fee waiver in this proceeding or in any proposed new or other existing legal proceeding concerning the allegations contained in the statement of claim unless he first obtains permission obtained from a judge, a deputy judge, or an associate judge, as applicable.
[11] If Mr. Chevalier wishes to ask for permission to obtain a fee waiver from a judge of this court, he shall use the process set out in Rule 38.13 only.
[12] This action is therefore dismissed in its totality.
[13] If any defendant wishes to seek costs, then on or before July 25, 2022, he she, or it may deliver written submissions and a Costs Outline to the plaintiffs and the registrar in Ottawa for transmission to me. The plaintiffs may respond to any costs submission that they receive by sending to the lawyers for the defendants and to the registrar in Ottawa, on or before August 1, 2022, their own written submissions and, if they wish, their own Costs Outlines. Written submissions from all parties shall be no longer than three 8.5” x 11” pages, double-spaced, in a minimum 12-point font.
FL Myers J
Date: July 18, 2022