COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00655219

DATE: 20220128

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: LUKE HALSTEAD, MICHAEL ELASCHUK, ANDREI KOROTTCHENKO, PAUL STEAD, ANDRIA DECAROLIS, JAMES CYBULSKIE and LISA WHITE, Applicants

– and –

JADE ELIZABETH THELWELL a.k.a. JADE NARAINE, Respondent

BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.

COUNSEL: Gary Caplan, for the Applicant, Luke Halstead Maanit Zemel, for the Applicant, Paul Stead Lorne Honickman, for the Applicant, Michael Elaschuk Andrei Korottchenko, on his own behalf Neil Kotnala, for the Applicant, James Cybulskie Louis Sokolov and Lauren Baker, for the Applicant, Lisa White Jade Elizabeth Thelwell, Respondent, on her own behalf

HEARD: January 10, 2022

APPLICATION under s. 140 of the courts of justice act

AMENDED ENDORSEMENT

[1] This Application is brought by seven unrelated Applicants. One of the Applicants, Andria Decarolis, has apparently settled her case with the Respondent and is not pursuing the within Application. The other six Applicants each have past and ongoing litigation against the Respondent. They together seek a stay of all proceedings brought by the Respondent and a declaration that the Respondent is a vexatious litigant.

[2] Over the past several years, the Respondent has had a large number of cases in the courts. Her cases for the most part involve the Applicants, although she has also sued the federal government and over a dozen members of the Toronto Police Services. Her litigation volume is augmented by the fact that she repeats and over-narrates most of her cases; for example, she has filed multiple (it would appear to be over a dozen) affidavits in response to the present Application.

[3] The Applicants have prepared a chart of all of the Respondent’s litigation of which they are aware. There may be more. The chart shows and describes in the Applicants’ counsel’s words some 54 different actions, applications, prosecutions, and other types of proceedings since 2014. The chart also includes outside of court conduct which I have left as described by Applicants’ counsel, except to note that the conduct is alleged to be vexatious, not proven to be so. A copy of this chart is appended hereto as Schedule A.

[4] In analyzing this Application, I will neither review in detail the factual background nor discuss in any depth the merits of any of the 54 cases. Applicants’ counsel submit, correctly, that the vexatiousness of a litigant is assessed with a view to a course of conduct, both in and outside of their litigation, and not on the specific merits of any one claim.

[5] Although the test for a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c. 43 (“CJA”) does not turn strictly on volume, the sheer volume of cases brought by (and sometimes against) the Respondent speaks to her inclination to use the courts with somewhat less reserve than most people exhibit. In this respect, Schedule A speaks for itself. It is fair to say that she is an avid and repeat litigator. In their factum, Applicants’ counsel describe their clients as “persistently victimized by her multiple groundless proceedings and unreasonable conduct both in and out of court.”

[6] The Applicants claim that in addition to having to respond to an inordinate amount of litigation, they have been the subject of harassing and defamatory internet postings by the Respondent. In fact, she has been convicted of defamatory libel in respect of some of her internet postings. She has also been found in contempt of court and in breach of bail conditions with respect to her internet postings about some of the Applicants. Under cross-examination in these proceedings, she has admitted to lying under oath.

[7] In their factum, Applicants’ counsel summarize their view of the Respondent’s litigation as follows:

Ms. Thelwell’s proceedings: (i) are intended to promote her songwriter/‘woman’s rights’ activist/future lawyer careers; (ii) follow a familiar pattern which is designed to seek revenge against persons (mostly failed romantic partners but also agents of authority) whom she blames for her perceived misfortunes; and (iii) contain cookie-cutter serial pleadings that constantly recycle and build upon baseless claims. There is a pattern that runs through all of her litigation, which, when viewed objectively, demonstrates that her use of the civil justice system is an abuse of process.

[8] In response, the Respondent has for the most part sought to argue the merits of each of her cases. As indicated, it is not my task in an Application like this to determine the merits of any claims. I do not have the complete records of those claims before me and would not be in a position to substantively comment on them even if I were so inclined. The issue in this Application is whether Ms. Thelwell has been churning litigation, advancing repetitive claims, harassing the Applicants and/or other participants in the justice system, and (as alleged by the Applicants), using the courts for an ulterior purpose – i.e. as a form of marketing platform for her music career, as discussed further below.

[9] With the detailed and voluminous litigation background presented to me here, this should be an easy case. On the surface of things, the Respondent seems to fit the description of a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the CJA. From the Applicants’ point of view, she appears to sue the same parties “repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause(s) of action, perhaps with minor variations…thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim: Attorney General v. Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759 (UK).

[10] Furthermore, the Respondent exhibits many of the badges of vexatious conduct identified by the Court of Appeal in Foy v. Foy (No. 2), 1979 CanLII 1631 (ONCA). The examples of this conduct cited by the Applicants include:

advancing evidence or positions that are totally irrelevant to the issues;
making arguments which are irrational or unintelligible;
interpreting facts or law in an irrational or unreasonable way;
failure to abide by court orders or directives and lack of cooperation generally;
issuing threats, and demonstrating anger, or refusing to answer questions; and
expending disproportionate amounts of time and resources to pursue a claim.

[11] And yet with all of that, this is not an easy case.

[12] Of the 54 cases outlined in Schedule A, there are only about 5 or 6 live actions. The balance are historic actions that have in one way or another been resolved. The actions that remain alive are against the Applicants. With the exception of the Respondent’s claim against the Applicant, Lisa White, who is a lawyer who formerly represented the Respondent and is sued by the Respondent in that capacity, the other Applicants are all men with whom the Respondent at some time dated or was romantically involved. She has asserted claims of sexual abuse and/or sexual assault and/or sexual harassment, as well as claims of defamation, against each of them.

[13] In bringing the present Application, the Applicants seek to stay each of those claims without a trial; indeed, they seek to stay the claims without addressing them on the merits in a summary judgment motion or otherwise. As indicated, Applicants’ counsel’s point in analyzing the case under section 140 of the CJA is that the merit or lack of merit in the Respondent’s various pieces of litigation is not the issue. The issue is her conduct of the litigation and her conduct toward the Applicants that is tangential to the litigation.

[14] To explain my hesitation in reaching what on its face should be an easy decision in favour of the Applicants, I need not go into the merits of the claims at issue. But I do need to make reference to their subject matter and to a bit of background on the ongoing legal warfare between the parties.

[15] As indicated above, the Applicants (with the exception of Ms. White) were all men who dated or, to put it more bluntly, had a sexual relationship with the Respondent for some period of time. She met them on the internet or dating apps. The Respondent at some points has referred to them as her investors or financial backers because she convinced or attempted to convince each of them to put some money into backing her singing career.

[16] Many of the Respondent’s allegations against the Applicants entail complaints of sexual assault or sexually-related defamation. A small sample – merely a tiny fraction of the allegations of this nature – reveals the sordid nature of the allegations made in this package of litigation. For example:

Thelwell v Halstead, SC-17-6205, Respondent alleges that the Applicant Halstead duped her into a sexual relationship by falsely promising to be monogamous;
Elaschuk v Thelwell, CV-17-586772, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant Elaschuk is “obsessed with sex and believed that [the Respondent] should mimic and reflect in porn starts and strippers”;
Thelwell v. Korottchenko, CV-18-594788, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant Korottchenko is part of a group who have “teamed up as ‘online hunters’ who use women for sex [and who] emotionally abuse and victimize [women victims]”;
Thelwell v. Stead, Halstead, and DeCarolis, CV-18-630219, the Respondent alleges that the Applicants Stead and Halstead visited her grandmother’s house in a threatening manner in order to intimidate her and that the Applicant Stead intentionally misled police about the Respondents sexual relations with men;
Thelwell v. Cybuski, CV-20-641619, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant Cybuski imposed unconsented-to sex on her, and further alleges that he was manipulative, spread defamatory misinformation about her, and abused her pet dog;
Thelwell v. White, CV-19-631116, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant White was her lawyer and permitted a false pre-sentence report to be filed with a criminal court that quoted the Applicant Halstead, her “perpetrator in a sexual assault”, in stating that the Respondent suffered from mental illness.

[17] The Respondent is a country music singer with a number of songs to her credit. Her music can be easily accessed and seen on YouTube. She has had some success in the music world, with songs charting on American country music radio, and aspires to more. The Applicants do not deny that the Respondent has a budding musical career; in fact, it is their submission that much of the litigation in which she engages can be explained as a form of advertising or publicity stunt to promote herself in the music entertainment world.

[18] In her lengthy and often rambling affidavits, the Respondent blames her litigation-related troubles for the roadblock that she has encountered in her musical career. As an aside, I will agree with Applicants’ counsel that the Respondents’ affidavits in this matter are emblematic of her entire approach to litigation. That is, she does not seem able to focus and seems to confuse volume for effectiveness and impact on the reader. Applicants’ counsel have expressed considerable frustration in dealing with her approach to written evidence, which generally attempts to review every detail of her relationship with the Applicants regardless of its relevance to the litigation. I do not blame them for experiencing frustration.

[19] The Respondent has deposed that she would like to hire a lawyer to represent her in her many proceedings, but can only afford to retain a behind-the-scenes “legal coach” who has not gone on record. It is clear that someone is coaching the Respondent in research, as her use of case law is more lawyer-like than one might expect from a non-legally trained party. But the coach, whoever it is, has failed to impart the building blocks of coherent writing. Like Applicants’ counsel, I have found myself spending many hours wading through lengthy, rambling, almost stream-of-consciousness affidavits and exhibits hoping that somewhere her narrative will get to the point.

[20] The Respondent’s writing style itself borders on vexatious even apart from her other conduct that the Applicants criticize. Her materials filed here are endless trees with almost no shape to the forest. If the Respondent is to continue representing herself and using an invisible “legal coach”, either she or the coach will need to master the skill of editing. In legal writing, the journey is not itself the destination.

[21] In any case, the Respondent has had a dispute with the federal government over the issuance of a passport, which she claims has prevented her from performing and recording in the United States where the majority of her audience resides. In addition, she relates in her initial affidavit filed in response to the present Application that the litigation with the Applicants, and what she alleges is their defamatory postings about her on the internet, has interfered with her career and her ability to earn an income from her music.

[22] The Applicants have taken this statement and run with it about as far as one could, asserting that the Respondent has thereby “put her income in issue” in her affidavit. The Respondent submits, correctly in my view, that she did not make an issue of her income and never said that music was her only source of income. Establishing a loss of income may be germane to some of the Respondent’s claims in the underlying litigation, but it is barely relevant, if at all, to the present Application.

[23] Despite it having no real relevance to the within Application, Applicants’ counsel took the Respondent’s tangential statement about income as litigation lawyers are want to do – they considered that it was now fair game to investigate and test in every way possible how she earns a living. In order to do so, the Applicants (with the exception of Ms. White) hired a retired police officer, Tam Bui, as a private investigator to conduct an in-depth probe of the Respondent.

[24] What Mr. Bui came up with is the website of an escort agency called “Top Drawer Ladies” where the Respondent apparently maintains a web page under the name “Elsa Rose”. There she advertises her services as an escort.

[25] Mr. Bui paid $160 to book a half-hour meeting with the Respondent, in her Elsa Rose identity, at a hotel. Considering that the Respondent had raised the question of money in only the most passing and inconsequential way, this tactic seems rather aggressive. As indicated above, additional evidence about the Respondent’s finances would not impact at all on the Application at hand; it is self-evident that a court would not need to hear about whether she did or did not have alternative sources of income in determining whether section 140 of the CJA applies to her legal actions. In this respect, it seems obvious that the Applicants’ aim in conducting this type of investigation was not truly that the Respondent had “put her income in issue”.

[26] What the Applicants seemingly wanted to accomplish in taking the private investigator approach to the evidence was twofold: a) to embarrass the Respondent into lying about her conduct so that they could expose her as a liar, and b) to come up with something sufficiently salacious to undermine her protestations of good character once and for all. Having found the Elsa Rose web page, the Applicants decided to go for gold on both of those aims. They sent Mr. Bui to meet the Respondent with a hidden video camera. She met him at the hotel room door in what looks like a pink, frilly or lace-covered article of clothing, and immediately went to give him a hug.

[27] I will say that, somewhat to Mr. Bui’s credit, the video that he surreptitiously made of this encounter, and that became an exhibit to his affidavit, was filmed at a relatively discreet angle. It is mostly focuses on the Respondent’s face, and only shows fleeting shots of her lace collar and does not focus below the collar. Although the Respondent complained at the hearing before me that she was mortified to find out she was filmed wearing her lingerie, in fact that is not what is shown in the video. The film suggests how she is clothed, but does not really show it.

[28] What does come through loud and clear in the videotape, however, is the recorded conversation. Mr. Bui asks what he gets for his $160, and the Responding clearly and distinctly can be heard offering Mr. Bui a massage and oral sex for his money. Mr. Bui then spends some time making conversation with the Respondent before ultimately declining to engage in sexual conduct and leaving the hotel room.

[29] Applicants’ counsel portray this tactic as an effort to demonstrate the Respondent’s lack of credibility. In cross-examination they asked her if she has ever been an escort and she denied it; when advised of Mr. Bui’s videotape, she then had to backpedal and ultimately concede that she had not told the truth. She then continued to deny that she was really a sex worker, and stated that she had set up the Elsa Rose web page as a form of bait to get the Applicants to contact her to show their own low character. Applicants’ counsel calls this story an outlandish tale, which I agree it is. Her explanation of who Elsa Rose is and why she was created is patently ridiculous. On the other hand, the Applicants’ tactic in going down the hidden camera road is as outlandish as any of the Respondent’s own tactics.

[30] Under the Criminal Code of Canada it is illegal to purchase sexual services or to procure such services for another person or for a person to live off the avails of another person’s sexual services; but sex work itself is not illegal. By assuming the Elsa Rose guise, the Respondent was doing nothing that is criminally prohibited, nor was she acting in a way that was truly relevant to what she had said in her affidavit.

[31] What the Applicants hoped to accomplish by exposing the Respondent’s sex work was not so much to disclose an alternative source of income or illegal conduct on her part. There was no illegality and her income is not truly at issue in the Application. What they seem to have wanted to do, and what the Respondent was doubtless wary of, was to highlight her supposedly unsavory lifestyle. That way, whether she falsely denied it or truthfully admitted it, she would potentially be cast in a negative light. The entire exercise gives the impression that it was designed as a form of attack on character.

[32] Given this aspect of the Applicants’ approach, it is little wonder that the Respondent reverted to denial mode when she was asked about all of this. Her instinct was presumably to fend off the attack on her character that this line of investigation suggests. I do not, of course, justify her having given an untruthful answer under oath; but I do not take this instance of untruthfulness as reflective of the Respondent being a chronic liar whose other answers can never be trusted.

[33] Ironically, Mr. Bui’s cloak-and-dagger evidence has gone a long way toward countering the Applicants’ main theory about the Respondent’s litigation habits. Applicants’ counsel have tried to establish that the Respondent serially sues every man with whom she is romantically involved or has a sexual relationship. The Respondent has countered that that is not true and that in any case the Applicants could not possibly know that. To the extent that this means that the Applicants do not know all the men with whom she has been involved, she is probably right. Mr. Bui’s evidence about the Respondent’s working life as Elsa Rose counters the Applicants’ very point.

[34] If the Applicants are right about the Respondent’s means of earning an income, as Mr. Bui’s video suggests they are, there would likely be a steady flow of individuals whom she has encountered in a hotel room but not in a court room. In exposing the Respondent’s Elsa Rose persona, the Applicants have done all they could to prove that she is not adversarial to all with whom she is intimate. To be blunt, the five male Applicants retained Mr. Bui, but they have effectively demonstrated that Elsa Rose, who made an appointment with Mr. Bui without any apparent hesitation, is likely to have a longer client list than that.

[35] The Applicants’ aggressive desire to expose the sexual side of the Respondent’s life gives me cause for concern. As indicated earlier, the Respondent’s sexual relations with the male Applicants and her allegations of sexual assault are at the heart of the claims between the parties. If the Applicants are successful here the result will be that those claims will be stayed. The Respondent argues that the Applicants will, in effect, have stymied her claims against them without ever having those claims adjudicated on the merits.

[36] In support of her argument that no stay should be granted, the Respondent cites the British Columbia Supreme Court judgment in TJO v. DJM, 2021 BCSC 1704. That case entailed a high conflict family law dispute in which the parties made mutually recriminating allegations of oppressive and abusive conduct. The wife accused the husband of being an abusive party and a vexatious litigant, having commenced several dozen actions and applications relating to their conflict over the years. The Court found that there was no real evidence that the husband had abused the judicial process and that he was not vexatious, but rather stated that he was often reacting to egregious conduct engaged in by the wife herself.

[37] The case at bar has many echoes of the TJO ruling. Here, like in TJO, it can be said of the accusing side – the Applicants – that they are “not the innocent victim in the sprawling litigation that has consumed the parties for almost three years, but rather [are] equal participant[s]”: Ibid., at para 356. Both sides accuse the other of posting abusive messages on the internet about the other. Likewise, while the Applicants have approached the litigation with more lawyer-like language and less formless volume than has the Respondent, they have used an aggressive investigation into the Respondent’s sexual conduct that was in my view uncalled for in the context of this litigation. While the Respondent has gone overboard in the volume of litigation and the volume of filings within much of the litigation, I can also say that it is often in response to conduct engaged in by the Applicants.

[38] In her factum, at para 100, the Respondent also relies on the TJO case for the proposition that the “because a woman appears to be a genuine PTSD suffering individual, she [i.e. the judge in TJO] was not willing to not allow her to proceed with her allegations of sexual abuse against her ex-husband.” From this, the Respondent extracts the point that, “Sexual assault lawsuits are of the highest seriousness. The aftermath of sexual abuse can impact the victims for a very long time…” In the Respondent’s submission, her claims of sexual assault by the Applicants are too important and too far reaching for her to allow them to be stayed without trial.

[39] I read the TJO case carefully and, frankly, do not actually see the Respondent’s point being made by the British Columbia judge. I am not sure how, exactly, the Respondent managed to extract this argument from the TJO judgment. She has presumably been pointed to the case by her unnamed “legal coach”, but she and the coach have engaged in some creative interpretation of their own.

[40] That does not mean, however, that the Respondent’s point is a bad one. In fact, in my view it is a rather strong policy point, although it does not come from the TJO judgment.

[41] Civil claims of sexual assault are, in fact, very important and should not be easily dismissed without being considered on their merits. The federal Department of Justice reports that the majority of sexual assaults in Canada go unreported, and that of those that are reported to the police up to 46% are cleared before being charged and fewer than half of those that are charged result in a guilty verdict: Department of Justice, “Just Facts: Sexual Assault” (April 2019), https://www.justice.gc.ca /eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2019/apr01.html. This has been a troubling aspect of the enforcement of the law of sexual assault that the legal system must now strive to address.

[42] In this law enforcement environment, civil actions for sexual assault have become a particularly important medium for victims in having their allegations heard. As a panel of British Columbia lawyers has observed in its study of the issue, “the civil justice system is playing a leading role in establishing how our society will compensate claims of sexual assault, in framing the issues, in developing compensatory principles, and in influencing other procedures for dealing with sexual assault”: British Columbia Law Institute, “Civil Remedies for Sexual Assault”, BCLI Report No. 14 (June 2001), at p. iv.

[43] The outcomes of civil claims for sexual assault vary like in any other field of litigation, but the fact of their being played out in court has not just a legal but a therapeutic impact on complainants: Bruce Feldthusen, Olena Hankivsky, Lorraine Greaves, “Therapeutic Consequences of Civil Actions for Damages and Compensation Claims by Victims of Sexual Abuse - An Empirical Study” (2000), 12 Can J Women & Law 66. The importance of the allegations being aired in a judicial forum is increasingly recognized as a paramount consideration in assessing whether such cases are to proceed.

[44] Applicants’ counsel contend that the Respondent’s claims of sexual assault, defamation, etc. are so outlandish that they can be dismissed out of hand. I am reluctant to come to that conclusion. Although the Respondent is prone to embellishment and to going off on so many tangents that she barely tells a coherent story, there is enough evidence of a sordid relationship between her and the Applicants to make me hesitate. It is not my role to adjudicate the various sexual assault and other claims here, but I am not inclined to prevent any other court from doing so by issuing the Applicants the all-encompassing remedy that they seek against the Respondent.

[45] Applicants’ counsel are, of course, at liberty to bring motions against the Respondent in each of the individual cases seeking to have them dismissed or the pleadings struck. If they are so convinced that there is no substance to any of the Respondent’s allegations, this should eventually result in a successful course of action.

[46] If this approach does prove successful, the series of motions in the individual actions will accomplish the Applicants’ goal without depriving the Respondent of the due process and day (or days) in court that she deserves. Of course, if any or all of the actions cannot be dismissed on a motion, then they will be pursued to trial or to final settlement just like any other piece of civil litigation.

[47] The Application is dismissed.

[48] Given the volume of litigation, I do understand why the Applicants brought this Application. Schedule A alone makes this point. Although as I have said, the Applicants too have exhibited some difficult behaviours resulting in this complex web of claims and counter claims, their Application and overall characterization of the Respondent’s conduct is not entirely devoid of accuracy.

[49] Accordingly, there will be no costs of this Application for or against any party.

Morgan J.

Date: January 28, 2022

SCHEDULE A

Victim / Party

Court and File No.

Dates

Summary of claims / Charges

Summary of alleged vexatious conduct

Status / Disposition

Summary of Out of court alleged vexatious conduct

Christopher Payne

R. v Thelwell criminal proceedings

Charged Dec. 10, 2014 Pleaded guilty – June 11, 2015

Extortion
Criminal Harassment

Unknown

Guilty plea for Criminal Harassment
Sentenced to Conditional Discharge & 12 month peace bond including not to contact Mr. Payne (Caselines # A5815)
Harassment & extortion of Payne
Defamation of Payne online (ex. Caselines # A2407 & A2318)

Christopher Payne

Thelwell v Payne 2 Small Claims Court actions No: SC-16-3298 SC-16-9178

2016

Unknown

Published privileged Minutes of Settlement online as proof “winning” her case against Payne (Caselines #A557)

Settled

Harassment and extortion of Mr. Payne
Defamation of Payne online (ex. Caselines # A2407 & A2318))
The settlement terms prohibited Thelwell from posting about Payne & she breached those terms regularly

Christopher Payne

R. v. Thelwell – criminal proceedings

August 2016

Sending messages to Payne in breach of peace bond

Violating sentencing conditions

Charges withdrawn by Crown (Caselines #A5817)

Harassment and defamation of Payne online

Adam Wylychenko

R v. Thelwell – criminal proceedings

August 2016

Two counts of Criminal Harassment

-Later sued her lawyer (Lisa White) for negligence

Sought to have her guilty plea struck by the court

Plead guilty to one count of Criminal Harassment in Feb 2017 -Per Caldwell J: “I’m certainly satisfied that [the guilty plea is] made out on the basis of those texts. ... I think on the basis of the texts alone, it's more than made out” (Caselines # A1825)

Threatened & published defamatory online posts about Wylychenko (Caselines # A3907); Sent an email to Wylychenko’s employer about their relationship; Sent over 500 threatening and harassing text messages to Mr. Wylychenko (Caselines p. #A3909-A3917

Wylychenko

Thelwell v Wylychenko -Small Claims Court Action (Caselines # A3572)

In or around 2016

Unknown

Unknown

Same as above

Andrei Korottchenko (Applicant)

R. v Thelwell – criminal charges (Caselines #A5819 – para. 44)

2018

Criminal harassment & failure to comply with bail conditions
Bail condition not to communicate with Korottchenko & not to post anything online about Korottchenko

Breached her bail conditions several times by communicating with Korottchenko, harassing and defaming him online and offline

In 2021, Thelwell was found Guilty of breach or recognizance by Two Judges: Borenstein J. (Caselines Doc # 25) & O’Brien J. (Caselines Doc # 26)

Harassed and defamed Korottchenko online and offline, including that he was fraudulent lawyer, a predator, committed professional misconduct, committed adultery with spouses of his firm’s clients, made racist remarks, and sexually harassed women
Per Borenstein J.: “Ms. Thelwell engaged in a sustained online attack against [Korottchenko & Halstead]. She used her social media platforms to accuse one or the other or both of all sorts of activities including stealing, using drugs, lying, abusing women, engaging in criminal behaviour, including sexual assault.” (Caselines #A5866)

Korottchenko

Thelwell v Korottchenko – Ontario SCJ No. CV- CV-18-594788

March 2018

“intentional infliction of emotional distress by defamation and harassment”

-Amended claim multiple times

Scheduled court attendances unilaterally and without notice -Brought unsuccessful motion for interlocutory injunction, which she amended several times
Wrote a letter to the motion judge (Lederer J.) to complain about his decision (Caselines #A1555)
Brought and later abandoned motion for leave to appeal of Lederer J.’s order
Served discovery questions in writing, which were long and irrelevant
Thelwell received a letter from the Office of the Regional Senior Justice in Toronto warning her about communicating directly with the Court (Caselines A525-A528)
Action dismissed on consent without prejudice to start a new claim (CV- 19-612815)
July 2018 - Lederer J. dismissed Thelwell’s motion for interlocutory injunction with costs of $5900 against Thelwell (Caselines #1428)
Continued defamation online (see above)
Postings online about the litigation

Korottchenko

Thelwell v Korottchenko Small Claims Action # SC-18-5544 (Caselines Docs # 31 to 34)

May 2018

“conspiracy to commit perjury” Filing false claims with the police that Thelwell breached her bail conditions (which she later plead guilty to)

Sept. 7, 2018 - Thelwell sought to abandon the action shortly before the settlement conference and after document briefs were filed; Oct. 12, 2018 – Thelwell sought to restart her abandoned action (Caselines # A527)

Action ongoing
Constant and continued defamation online

Korottchenko

Thelwell v Korottchenko, Halstead & Elaschuk CV-19-00612815

January 2019

Sexual harassment Defamation Malicious prosecution Conspiracy

See below re Elaschuk actions

Action ongoing

See below re Elaschuk actions

Korottchenko

Thelwell v Bui, Strike Consulting, Halstead, Korottchenko, Elaschuk & Stead, Small Claims Action # SC-21-3847

May 2021

Invasion of Privacy

See below re Bui action

Action is ongoing

Action brought in Small Claims Court to avoid it being subject to Case Management by Justice Ramsay; Commenced the action while this S. 140 Application is ongoing, contrary to Justice Ramsay’s direction that all actions against the Applicants are stayed while this application is pending

Korottchenko

Complaint to the Law Society of Ontario (Caselines # A564 - A569)

April 2018

sexual assault harassment threats defamation

See above

Complaint dismissed by LSO

Continued harassment and defamation online and offline

Luke Halstead (Applicant)

R. v. Thelwell – criminal charges

June 2017

Uttering a forged document in Halstead’s name

Thelwell forged a reference letter in Halstead’s name, which was provided to her probation officer in connection with a pre-sentencing report

Unknown

Thelwell filed a complaint with the police that the probation officer had prepared a false report. The police refused to follow-up on this complaint (Caselines #A5818)

Halstead

R. v Thelwell – criminal charges

2018

Criminal harassment & failure to comply with bail conditions

Breached her bail conditions by communicating, harassing and defaming him online and offline

In 2021, Thelwell was found Guilty of breach or recognizance by Two Judges: Borenstein J. (Caselines Doc # 25) & O’Brien J. (Caselines Doc # 26)

Harassed and defamed Halstead online and offline Per Borenstein J.: “Ms. Thelwell engaged in a sustained online attack against [Korottchenko & Halstead]. She used her social media platforms to accuse one or the other or both of all sorts of activities including stealing, using drugs, lying, abusing women, engaging in criminal behaviour, including sexual assault.” Caselines #A5866) Filed a complaint with the police against Halstead. The police investigated and concluded there was no basis to charge him. (Caselines # A5819)

Halstead

Private Prosecution & Application for Judicial Review to the Ontario Div. Court

December 2017

Thelwell filed a Private Prosecution against Halstead alleging sexual assault

Thelwell filed multiple complaints against Halstead with the police for sexual assault. The police investigated and refused to lay charges against Halstead. As a result, Thelwell filed a Private Prosecution against Halstead. Thelwell did not disclose relevant and probative evidence to the police & Crown

The Crown stayed the Private Prosecution. Thelwell brought an application for judicial review of the Crown’s decision. The application was dismissed by the Div. Court. (Caselines # A5819)

Continuous and constant harassment and defamation online and offline

Halstead

Thelwell v Halstead – Small Claims Court Action # SC-17-6205

June 2017

The Claim contained the same allegations made against Halstead in parallel Superior Court proceedings (see below) including: “the tort of infliction of mental distress, personal injury, mental anguish (phobia of men and sexual relationships, anxiety disorder, false pretense, and luring into polygamy/polyamory, sex assault, deformation (sic) with intent to mislead outcome in Court proceedings". Just before the trial in 2018, she amended her pleading to allege "Tort: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress via Public Mischief, Slander and Providing False information to Probation and Police Officers with Intent to Mislead a court outcome” (Caselines Doc # A27)

Amended pleadings shortly before trial to withdraw sexual assault allegation Filed a voluminous “trial record” containing a 10 page unsworn “statement” including the following statement: “There is a group of men who are working together to file fraudulent reports to revenge for my releasing a truthful statement of how I was treated online ..... (I')he organizer of this group is Andrei Korottchenko, a lawyer, and the other members include my perpetrator Luke Halstead, Michael Elaschuk, and two other boyfriends Adam Wylychenko and Marco Letta as well as a previous investor ... Christopher Payne.” (Caselines # A190-A199)

The claim was dismissed in its entirety at trial by Anschell D.J. with costs payable to Halstead (Caselines # A203-A213)

Continued and constant online and offline harassment and defamation of Halstead

Halstead

Thelwell v Halstead SCJ File #CV-18-589360

Jan. 2018

Sexual Assault

Brought motion for default judgement before Justice O’Marra for sexual assault (Caselines #B-1-180) Did not disclose relevant and probative evidence to O’Marra J. (Caselines p. A3698) Attempted to garnish Halstead’s wages (Caselines #A428)

Default judgement was set aside by Corbett J. [Caselines p. #A450)
Action is ongoing

Published the default judgement online and to the media as evidence of Halstead’s “guilt” of sexual assault (Caselines #A298- A301) Continuous defamation and harassment of Halstead online and offline Wrote to Halstead’s employer, Toronto Paramedic Service, threatening to sue them because she “thinks it's wrong and hurtful for Toronto Paramedic Services to treat the victims of their employee's abuse poorly.” (Caselines # A444-A447)

Halstead

Thelwell v Korottchenko, Halstead & Elaschuk CV-19-00612815

January 2019

Sexual harassment Defamation Malicious prosecution

Conspiracy
See below re Elaschuk actions

Action ongoing

Constant and continued defamation & harassment online & offline

Halstead

Thelwell v Stead, Decarolis & Halstead – Ontario SCJ File # CV-19-630219

Oct. 2019

Sexual assault
defamation,
conspiracy
intentional infliction of emotional distress
Malicious prosecution (later withdrawn)

Noted Halstead in default; See below re Stead

Noting in default has been set aside Action is ongoing

Constant and continued harassment & defamation online & offline

Halstead

Thelwell v Bui, Strike Consulting, Halstead, Korottchenko, Elaschuk & Stead, Small Claims Action # SC-21-3847

May 2021

Invasion of Privacy

See below re Bui action

Action is ongoing

Michael Elaschuk (Applicant)

Elaschuk v Thelwell – defence & counterclaim Ontario SCJ No CV-17-586772

November 17, 2017

Action by Elaschuk against Thelwell for Online Defamation Draft counterclaim for: “fraudulent conspiracy”; sexual assault; sexual harassment; defamation (Caselines #A726)

Avoided service; Numerous amendments and proposed amendments to pleadings; Attempted to issue a counterclaim; Attempted to manipulate the conduct of the Action to fit with her ongoing criminal proceedings instead of seeking a stay; Adjourned discoveries and refused to reschedule; Threatened to bring and then abandoned interlocutory motions; wrote to judges to complain about their decisions

Interlocutory injunction not to defame Elaschuk granted by Nishikawa J. (Caselines #A700-A709) Thelwell’s motion for leave to appeal to Div. Ct. dismissed (Caselines #A718) Action is ongoing. Discoveries have yet to be held.

Constant and continuous defamation online of Elaschuk, including during Contempt proceedings on the very issue; Online defamation of opposing counsel and judges; Numerous threatening emails to opposing counsel, including to file complaints against them with the LSO; Numerous rambling nonsense emails;

Elaschuk

Elaschuk v Thelwell - motion for Civil contempt

March 2019

Thelwell breached the injunction by posting defamatory content about Elaschuk and the litigation online

Contempt of court; Repeatedly delayed contempt proceedings; Wrote to judge complaining about decisions; frivolous appeal of contempt finding

Thelwell found in Contempt of Court Order by Nishikawa J. (Elaschuk v Thelwell, 2020 ONSC 1407) (Caselines # A6414)

Continuous and constant online defamation of Elaschuk, opposing counsel and judges

Elaschuk

Thelwell v Korottchenko, Halstead & Elaschuk - CV-19-00612815

January 2019

Sexual harassment Defamation Malicious prosecution Conspiracy

Same as above

In Jan. 2020 Sossin J. struck Thelwell’s allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy and defamation as against Elaschuk, with leave to amend and costs to Elaschuk - 2020 ONSC 340 (Caselines #A985)

Constant and continued defamation & harassment online & offline of Elaschuk

Elaschuk

Thelwell v Bui, Strike Consulting, Halstead, Korottchenko, Elaschuk & Stead, Small Claims Action # SC-21-3847

May 2021

Invasion of Privacy

See below re Bui action

Action is ongoing

Paul Stead (Applicant)

R. v Thelwell – Criminal proceedings in Belleville - OCJ file No. 1311-998-19-191818

Sept. 2019

Defamatory Libel (2 counts) Breach of Recognizance

After one unsuccessful date, Thelwell anonymously posted egregious defamatory content about Stead, who is an OPP detective, including that he committed sexual assault; (ii) that he took cocaine from someone he arrested and used it himself; and, (iii) that he used illicit drugs; Thelwell breached the bail conditions not to access the internet by posting the defamatory content about Stead online. Despite being found guilty, Thelwell continues to deny publishing the defamatory content

Oct. 2021 - O’Brian J. found Thelwell guilty of defamatory libel and breaching bail conditions (Caselines Doc. #A26) Thelwell has advised that she is appealing the guilty finding Sentencing decision scheduled for Jan. 19, 2022

Continuous and repeated defamation and harassment of Stead online

Stead

Thelwell v Stead, Decarolis & Halstead Ont SCJ File # CV-19-630219 (Caselines Doc. # A37)

Oct. 2019

Conspiracy; Defamation; Intentional Infliction of emotional distress; Malicious prosecution (later withdrawn)

Witness intimidation - When Thelwell discovered that Stead and Decarolis are witnesses in the criminal proceeding, she issued this action alleging, that Stead, Decarolis & Halstead had conspired to “entrap her” by arranging a date between her and Stead, posting the defamatory content about Stead online and then complaining to the OPP, resulting in the criminal charges laid against her. She was later found guilty of publishing the postings beyond a reasonable doubt; Repeated amendments to pleadings

Action is ongoing

Continuous online defamation of Stead

Stead

Thelwell v Bui, Strike Consulting, Halstead, Korottchenko, Elaschuk & Stead, Small Claims Action # SC-21-3847

May 2021

Invasion of Privacy

See below re Bui action

Action is ongoing

Andria Decarolis (Applicant)

Thelwell v Stead, Decarolis & Halstead Ont SCJ File # CV-19-630219 (Caselines Doc. #A37)

Oct. 2019

Conspiracy Defamation Intentional Infliction of emotional distress Malicious prosecution (later withdrawn)

3 days before the hearing of this s. 140 Application, Thelwell consented to dismiss the action as against Decarolis without costs

James Cybulskie (Applicant)

R. v. Thelwell Criminal Proceedings – OCJ File 4611-998-20-1066-00

Trial dates Feb 25, 26 and Mar 4, 2021

Breach of Release Order x 2 and assault

Unknown

Charges dismissed on breach of release order x2 and not guilty of assault

Cybulskie

Thelwell v Cybulskie Ont SCJ File No. CV-20-641619 (Caselines Doc. # A39)

May 2020

Sexual Assault; Malicious Prosecution; Defamation; Intentional infliction of emotional distress; Interference in economic relations; Conversion; Trespass to chattels; Detinue; Copyright infringement; Breach of privacy; Conspiracy;

Witness intimidation: Thelwell commenced this action after Cybulskie became a witness and complainant in criminal proceedings against her; Pleadings are regurgitation of allegations against other applicants and contain bold allegations incapable of proof

Action is ongoing

Cybulskie

Thelwell v Bui, Strike Consulting, Halstead, Korottchenko, Elaschuk & Stead, Small Claims Action # SC-21-3847

May 2021

Invasion of Privacy
See below re Bui action

Action is ongoing

Lisa White (Applicant)

Thelwell v White –Ontario SCJ File # CV-19-63116 (Caselines Doc. #A38)

Nov. 2019

Negligence claim against former criminal defence lawyer; Defamation (later withdrawn); Intentional infliction of emotional distress

White was Thelwell’s criminal defence lawyer in the proceedings involving Wylychenko. In May 2017, Thelwell terminated the retainer. Thelwell then sent demand letters and a draft statement of claim to White The claim is clearly barred by the Limitation Period (commenced more than 2 years after serving the draft statement of claim)

The Claim contains bald, irrelevant and frivolous allegations incapable of proof

The action is ongoing

Continuous defamation of White online

White

Complaint to the Law Society of Ontario

March 2018

Unknown

Unknown

In April 2018, the LSO closed the complaint on the basis that no further investigation of White was warranted

Continuous defamation of White online (Caselines # A535)

Tam Bui and Strike Consulting (Bui)

Thelwell v Bui, Strike Consulting, Halstead, Korottchenko, Elaschuk & Stead, Small Claims Action # SC-21-3847

May 2021

Invasion of Privacy

Witness intimidation - Bui is a private investigator witness retained by some of the Applicants for the purpose of gathering evidence in this application. Bui submitted an affidavit in support of the application, attesting to the results of his private investigation. One day after Bui’s affidavit was served on Thelwell, she commenced this Small Claims action. The claim is barred by the doctrine of Absolute Privilege Thelwell scheduled the cross-examination of Bui but refused to attend the cross-examination, even though all parties were in attendance (other than Thelwell)

Action is ongoing

The Centre for Addiction & Mental Health (CAMH) and Dr. Angus McDonald

Thelwell v CAMH et al Ont. SCJ File No. CV-CV1800593729

March 2018

Unknown

Online defamation of Dr. McDonald

Dr. Angus McDonald

Thelwell v McDonald – Ont. SCJ File # CV-18-600564

2018

Thelwell alleged professional negligence by Dr. McDonald in preparing a psychiatric assessment of Thelwell for the Ontario Court of Justice in the criminal proceedings involving Wylychenko

The claim was barred by the Doctrine of Absolute Privilege

Justice Faieta dismissed the claim summarily pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7). Faieta J. found that the claim “has no legal merit and, as a result, is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 2.1” (Caselines # -A6433a-A6433b)

Online defamation of Dr. McDonald

Jamal Cameron

Thelwell v Cameron – Small Claims Court action (Caselines #A217)

2017

Intentional infliction of emotional distress; Defamation; Negligence; Preparing a false pre-sentencing report

Cameron was Thelwell’s probation officer who prepared a pre-sentencing report (“PSR”) for the criminal proceedings involving Wylychenko. Thelwell sued Cameron because she was unhappy with his PSR

Unknown

Online defamation of Mr. Cameron

Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (“OHRT”) Proceedings - Thelwell v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) – OHRT File No. 2017-30449 (Caselines # A5862)

2017

Complaint to the OHRT for “discrimination” relating to the PSR prepared by Mr. Cameron

Unknown

The Complaint was dismissed by the OHRT on jurisdictional grounds – see Thelwell v Ontario, 2018 HRTO 954 (Caselines #A5862)

Unknown

Toronto Police Services Board

Thelwell v TPSB et al Ont SCJ File No. CV-18-595090 (Caselines #A5813)

2018

False arrest; False imprisonment; Malicious prosecution; Malicious breach of public duty; Intentional infliction of mental suffering; Defamation; Negligence and negligent investigation; Malice; Abuse of power; Breach of the Charter or Rights and Freedoms; Misfeasance in office Breach of the Human Rights Code;

Thelwell’s action against the TPSB and 16 police officers (see below) that were directly or indirectly involved in her criminal proceedings involving Wylychenko, Korottchenko and Halstead

Action is ongoing In March 2020 - allegations in the Statement of Claim struck by Monahan J. with partial leave to amend, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and/or for being frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process – see Thelwell v TPSB, 2020 ONSC 1803 (Caselines at #A5813-A5841)

Online defamation of police officers named in this action Media interviews and online postings about this action

Maureen Trueman