COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-318

DATE: 20220729

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

David Williams as General Executor of and for the David Williams Living Estate Trust

Plaintiff

– and –

John Tuck, Allison Krueger, Town of Parry Sounds, the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound, Jamie McGarvey, Bonnie Keith, Brad Horne, Doug McCann, Paul Borneman, Roger Burden and Vanessa Backman

Defendants

No one appearing for the Plaintiff

Mr. Sirdevan, for the Defendants

HEARD: July 27, 2022

RULING ON APPLICATION (S. 140 CJA HEARING)

MCCarthy j.

The Hearing

[1] On May 13, 2022, in my capacity as Local Administrative Judge in Barrie, I invoked the court’s inherent jurisdiction under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43 (“CJA”) and rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an in person hearing to be held for the purpose of determining whether a vexatious litigant finding should be made against the person of David Williams.

Jurisdiction

Abuse of Process

[2] Judges have an inherent and residual jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of the court’s process. This concept of abuse of process was described at common law as proceedings “unfair to the point that they are contrary to the interest of justice” (R v. Power, 1994 126 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601 at p. 616).

[3] The doctrine of abuse of process engages the inherent power of the court to prevent the misuse of its procedure, in a way that would be manifestly unfair to a party to the litigation before it or would in some other way bring the administration of justice into disrepute: see Toronto (City) v. CUPE, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, at para. 37, citing Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 2000 8514 (ON CA), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 55.

[4] The Supreme Court of Canada has stated in R v. Scott, 1990 27 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979, at p. 1007, that abuse of process may be established where the proceedings are vexatious or oppressive and violate the fundamental principles of justice underlying the community’s sense of fair play.

Vexatious Litigant

[5] Section 140(1) of the CJA gives the court authority to declare a party as a vexatious litigant. It reads as follows:

Vexatious Proceedings

140(1) Where a judge of the Superior Court is satisfied, on application, that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds,

(a) instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or

(b) conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner,

the judge may order that,

(c) no further proceeding be instituted by the person in any court; or

(d) a proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court may not be continued

[6] Section 140(3) of the CJA provides that once a party is declared vexatious, he or she may commence actions or applications only with leave of the court.

Background

[7] The present hearing follows upon a series of endorsements in which I dismissed two claims issued successively by: “David Williams Living Estate Trust” on December 2, 2021 (CV-21-1556); and “David Williams as General Executor of and for David Williams Living Estate Trust” on January 25, 2022 (CV-22-0110). The claims were dismissed on the basis that they constituted an abuse of process or were frivolous or vexatious (see my endorsements dated January 10, 2022 and February 15, 2022). Mr. Williams then issued a third claim (“the third action”) dated March 3, 2022 (CV-22-318) in which he named “David Williams as General Executor of and for the DAVID WILLIAMS Living Estate Trust” as Plaintiff. All three claims named the same defendants. All three claims contained similar and related, although not identical content. It was the issuance of the third action which prompted the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and order the present hearing.

[8] Mr. Williams was provided with a copy of my May 13, 2022, endorsement and was no doubt aware of the scheduled hearing date. Mr. Williams was invited to either withdraw all existing claims or indicate his willingness to appear to respond to the vexatious litigant inquiry. He did neither. Instead, he filed an irregular “Claimant’s Motion Seeking Disqualification and Recusal of Justice McCarthy” accompanied by an “Affidavit of Truth.” The contents of the motion and the affidavit contain all manner of accusation against both me and court staff.

[9] Mr. Williams’ materials allude to the date of the hearing, leaving the court with no doubt that he was aware that it was proceeding on the scheduled date.

[10] Mr. Williams declined to attend at the hearing and has therefore failed to attorn to the jurisdiction of the court.

[11] Mr. Sirdevan appeared on behalf of all the named Defendants in the third action.

[12] Mr. Sirdevan brought the court’s attention to several claims issued in both this court (out of Toronto) and in Federal Court naming “Minister David Williams” as Plaintiff and featuring as Defendants a former Governor General, a present and former federal cabinet minister and an assortment of other individuals collectively described as “The private men and women in their private, individual capacity.”

[13] The court has also been made aware of an earlier proceeding brought by “David Williams living Estate Trust David of the Williams General Executor (Plaintiff)”, which names some of the same Defendants as in the present action, and which was filed on May 7, 2021, in Parry Sound (“the Parry Sound claim”). That claim became the subject matter of a rule 2.1.01 request and court review. In an endorsement dated September 22, 2021, Koke J. dismissed the claim under that rule.

[14] It is apparent that Mr. Williams, having seen his claim dismissed in the Parry Sound court, has simply moved to the next jurisdiction, and issued similar but more extensive actions against an even wider range of Defendants in the three Barrie claims.

Disposition

[15] The motion for my disqualification and recusal must be dismissed. There is no evidentiary or legal basis to support it. In my capacity as a Superior Court judge, I have the jurisdiction and the authority to make the findings and issue the orders that I did. Mr. Williams’ recourse would be an appeal. In addition, the motion is itself an abuse of process. It is replete with unfounded but serious allegations against both me and court staff. We are accused variously of obstructing justice, vindictive abuse, having personal agendas, disregarding all legal precedents, denying access to the courts, being driven by retaliation, bias, nepotism, and favoritism for a family member etc.

[16] For the following reasons, I find David Williams to be a vexatious litigant. My findings in respect of the first two Barrie claims remain undisturbed. Those actions were found to be and remain an abuse of process for the reasons set out in my previous endorsements.

[17] David Williams has persisted in abusing the process of the court by issuing the third action in which he styles himself as “David Williams as General Executor of and for the DAVID WILLIAMS Living Estate Trust.” The styling of David Williams as General Executor or Estate Trustee is nothing more than a poorly veiled attempt to disguise the identity of the Plaintiff and to circumvent the effect of my January 10, 2022, endorsement. More troubling is the body of the claim itself which, read generously, is nothing more than a rehash of the first two dismissed Barrie claims as well as an elaboration upon the dismissed Parry Sound claim. All these claims revolve around alleged harm done to the Plaintiff arising out of an eviction from a residential tenancy at 15 Forest Street, Parry Sound. The claim asks for declaratory relief of the kind that a court cannot give, examples of which are: a) that the Defendants grossly interfered with the administration of the trust; b) that the Defendants failed to discharge their duties; c) that the General Executor was abused and terrorized; d) that the Defendants were unreasonable and unjustified in their actions and orders; e) that two of the Defendants took actions “to give the façade of legitimacy to their illegal action(s) to evict the Claimant.” As part of a breathtaking list of remedies, the claimant seeks a formal written apology to be published in three newspapers and a “public retraction of all the actions, abuse, terrorism, and orders the Defendants made carried by the local Radio Station the Moose 103.3 fm for every hour for a month and to be paid for by the Defendants.”

[18] This third action constitutes an abuse of process. I find it to be oppressive and unfair to the Defendants who cannot possibly be expected to plead or respond to it in any meaningful way. The pleading violates the fundamental principles of justice underlying the community’s sends of fair play and decency. It cannot survive scrutiny under rule 2.1.01 and must therefore be dismissed.

[19] This is the third claim launched in Barrie by David Williams or his designates in respect of the same incident or series of incidents and naming the same Defendants. It is the fourth such claim in Superior Court. All have been dismissed under rule 2.1.01. I am given to believe that, unless he is prevented from doing so, David Williams will continue to institute similar oppressive and unfair proceedings against these and other Defendants. I have arrived at the conclusion that David Williams is a vexatious litigant and I declare him to be so.

[20] That being the case, the court orders as follows:

i. that David Williams is a vexatious litigant.

ii. that David Williams in any capacity shall not institute any further proceedings in any court except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 140 of the CJA.

iii. All proceedings previously instituted by David Williams in any capacity in any court may not be continued except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court pursuant to section of the CJA

iv. Should David Williams in any capacity attempt to commence or continue any proceeding in Ontario without first obtaining leave to do so, the proceeding shall be immediately stayed.

v. Any application by David Williams for said leave must be accompanied by a copy of this order as well full copies of the three Barrie actions, the Parry sound action as well as the endorsements and orders made dismissing those actions

vi. A copy of this endorsement is to be sent to every Region of the Superior Court of Justice with a direction that no proceeding may be instituted by David Williams in any capacity unless a leave application made in compliance with this order is first brought.

vii. A copy of this endorsement shall also be sent to the office of the Chief Justice of this court.

viii. The motion brought for disqualification and recusal is dismissed.

ix. The order finding David Williams a vexatious litigant shall take effect immediately.

[21] The Defendants having responded and appeared on the application are entitled to make written submissions on costs. They are invited to do so via written submissions to the court. Those submissions shall be filed with the court on or before August 31, 2022 and shall be limited to 3 pages double-spaced.

[22] The Defendants, being interested parties to this application, are invited to prepare a draft proposed order for the consideration by the court. The form and content of that proposed order need not be approved by the Plaintiff.

[23] Finally, court staff at Barrie are requested to distribute this endorsement to the various entities mentioned in paragraph 20 hereto.

[24] There shall be an order to go in accordance with these reasons.

Justice J.R. McCarthy

Released: July 29, 2022

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

David Williams as General Executor of and for the David Williams Living Estate Trust

Plaintiff

-and-

John Tuck, Allison Krueger, Town of Parry Sounds, the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound, Jamie McGarvey, Bonnie Keith, Brad Horne, Doug McCann, Paul Borneman, Roger Burden and Vanessa Backman

Defendants

Ruling on application (S. 140 CJA HEARING)

McCarthy J.

Released: July 29, 2022