Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-22-89351 Date: 2023-04-06 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: R. Maxine Collins, Plaintiff And His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, Defendant

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Smith

Counsel: Self-represented Plaintiff Karlson Leung, Counsel for the Defendant

Heard: In writing

Reasons for Decision

M. Smith J

[1] The Defendant seeks an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s action, pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”).

[2] For reasons that follow, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

Procedural History

[3] On June 16, 2022, the Defendant’s request to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.

[4] On July 8, 2022, I gave the following directions:

a. The Registrar shall give the Plaintiff notice informing her that the court is considering making an order for dismissal. A copy of this Endorsement and a Form 2.1A shall be emailed to her.

b. The Plaintiff shall have 15 days after receiving notice to file responding written submissions by email. These submissions shall be no more than 10 pages in length.

c. If the Plaintiff does not file written submissions within the specified time frame, the court may make an order to dismiss without further notice to her.

d. If the Plaintiff files written submissions in accordance with this direction, I will review them and determine whether they should be provided to the Defendant so that they may be given an opportunity to file responding submissions.

e. After considering any submissions received pursuant to this Endorsement, I shall determine whether the claim against the Defendant ought to be struck under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules.

[5] On July 12, 2022, the Plaintiff properly filed her written submissions. However, for unknown administrative reasons, the Plaintiff’s submissions were not processed. I received a copy of these submissions on March 10, 2023.

[6] On March 13, 2023, I ordered the Defendant to provide its responding submissions.

[7] On March 28, 2023, I received the Defendant’s submissions.

Overview

[8] The Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

[9] The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Constitutional Question seeking a declaration recognizing whistleblowers as an analogous class / group of individuals, for the purposes of s. 15(1) of the Charter.

[10] The Plaintiff has been involved in multiple lawsuits since 2009. She alleges that in the context of these lawsuits, staff with the Courts Services Division of the Ministry of Attorney General have obstructed her access to justice.

[11] The Plaintiff also asserts that the courthouse staff have discriminated against her and have blacklisted her because she is a whistleblower, treating her as a vexatious litigant, even though no application to have her declared as such have been filed in the Ontario courts or the Federal Court of Canada.

[12] The Statement of Claim (“SOC”) is 411 paragraphs long. It recounts, in considerable detail, the legal proceedings and disputes in which she has been involved over the past 14 years. These include legal proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Quebec, and the Federal Court of Canada. The disputes outlined in the SOC involve, either directly or indirectly, Ontario and Quebec municipalities, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”).

Statement of Claim

[13] At paragraph 1 of the SOC, the Plaintiff claims a total of $425,000 in damages, comprising of $200,000 for discrimination contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter; $25,000 for “injury to dignity including retaliation”; $100,000 for “a percentage of legal claims for lost opportunities to pursue these claims due to acts of obstruction and interference”; and $100,000 for punitive damages.

[14] The Plaintiff claims that, as a former CRA employee and whistleblower, she has been blacklisted and discriminated by various levels of government (federal, provincial, and municipal), which has impacted her ability to pursue litigation regarding the deliberate indoor air pollution at her rental units. Furthermore, the Plaintiff pleads that she has been unable to obtain bailiff and translation services, as well as answers from CSIS regarding alleged electronic surveillance of her emails and online access.

[15] The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is summarized at paragraph 11 of her SOC, which reads as follows:

Based on the Material Facts, the Plaintiff pleads employees of Courts Services Divisions of the Ministry of the Attorney General consistently act to assist counsel for the opposing party, allow counsel for the opposing party to ignore the Rules of Civil Procedure while applying the Rules on a without-exception-strict-adherence basis to the Plaintiff or acting in violation of the Rules in the demands made on the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff disputes the legitimacy of the instructions as false and/or misleading she is threatened with consequences such as the document will not be filed, a motion won’t be scheduled, etc. Frequently filings are rejected without cause and these acts constitute discrimination and denial of the Plaintiff’s Charter rights. Obviously, counsel for opposing parties benefit from discrimination against the Plaintiff which results in access to justice being obstructed.

[16] The Material Facts referred to in paragraph 11 of the SOC are set out at paragraphs 59 to 379. In these paragraphs, the Plaintiff recapitulates her exchanges with courthouse staff in various locations across the Province of Ontario regarding 21 lawsuits that she commenced against different parties. The Court File numbers, and corresponding paragraph numbers of the SOC regarding these 21 lawsuits are set out below:

a. Court File No.: DC-09-0088-JR (paragraphs 60 to 65 of the SOC)

b. Court File Nos.: CV-10-402302 and CV-10-408388 (paragraphs 66 to 181 of the SOC)

c. Court File Nos.: 10-8676-01 and 10-8676-02 (paragraphs 182 to 232 of the SOC)

d. Court File No.: CV-10-3092 (paragraph 233 to 238 of the SOC)

e. Court File Nos.: C53077 and C53616 (paragraphs 239 to 246 of the SOC)

f. Court File No.: 55480-14 (paragraphs 247 to 251 of the SOC)

g. Court File No.: C61398 (paragraphs 252 to 259 of the SOC)

h. Court File No.: 56454-16 (paragraphs 260 to 261 of the SOC)

i. Court File No.: C62801 (paragraphs 262 to 264 of the SOC)

j. Court File No.: 56714-14 (paragraphs 265 to 266 of the SOC)

k. Court File No.: C62802 (paragraphs 267 to 272 of the SOC)

l. Court File No.: DC16-775 (paragraphs 273 to 276 of the SOC)

m. Court File No.: DC-17-595 (paragraphs 277 to 279 of the SOC)

n. Court File No.: DC-17-887 (paragraphs 280 to 284 of the SOC)

o. Court File No.: DC-17-868 (paragraphs 285 to 290 of the SOC)

p. Court File No.: DC-786-18 (paragraphs 291 to 295 of the SOC)

q. Court File No.: DC-20-2580 (paragraphs 296 to 301 of the SOC)

r. Court File No.: CV-21-86899 (paragraphs 302 to 323 of the SOC)

s. Court File No.: C69883 (paragraphs 324 to 379 of the SOC)

[17] At paragraphs 380 to 410, the Plaintiff argues the constitutional questions, referring to the provisions of various statutes, including one from the United Kingdom. In addition, the Plaintiff cites several decisions, reports from the United Nation and the Federal Government, as well as several articles, all in support of her claim for discrimination and whistleblowing.

[18] The Plaintiff ends her SOC at paragraph 411, by quoting the following from a report entitled Are Whistleblower Laws Working Report – 2021: “French poet Victor Hugo famously wrote: ‘You can resist an invading army; you cannot resist an idea whose time has come.’ Today, whistleblowing protection is one such idea – as evidenced by the rapidly increasing domestic regional and international activity on the topic – one of the most dynamic in global law.”

Legal Principles

[19] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules allows a court to dismiss an action if it appears, on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[20] In Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, at paras. 17 and 18, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that this rule is “not for close calls and its availability is predicated on the abusive nature of the proceedings being apparent on the face of the pleadings themselves”, which would include unfounded allegations in a pleading regarding the misconduct against judicial officers, court staff, and counsel.

[21] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules permits the court to weed out frivolous and vexatious claims, even when Charter remedies are being claimed: Joshi v. Ontario, 2019 ONSC 2444, at para. 19.

[22] Section 142 of the CJA states that “a person is not liable for any act done in good faith in accordance with an order or process of a court in Ontario.”

[23] Courthouse staff that are acting in accordance with the rules and orders are immune from civil action: Samra et al. v. HMKRO et al., 2023 ONSC 1682, at para. 37.

[24] Section 9(2)(b) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sch. 17 (“CLPA”) provides that the Crown is not subject to a proceeding for “anything done or omitted to be done by a person while discharging or purporting to discharge responsibilities of a judicial nature vested in the person or responsibilities that the person has in connection with the execution of judicial process.”

Plaintiff’s Submissions

[25] The Plaintiff’s written submissions were not helpful in addressing the deficiencies that I had noted in my Endorsement dated July 8, 2022. It included more of disjointed and incomprehensible submissions. Furthermore, in referring to one of my previous decisions (Collins v. Canada Post Corporation et al., 2021 ONSC 5987, upheld on appeal 2022 ONCA 295), the Plaintiff alleged that I was bias because I have “consistently shown a clear preference for supporting government and their counsel and has acted to prevent consideration of the material facts as contained in the Statement of Claim.”

Analysis

[26] I recognize that a dismissal under r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules should be reserved for clearest of cases. In my view, on the face of the pleadings, this is one of those cases where the Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, vexatious, abusive, and devoid of merit. I say so for the following reasons.

[27] First, reading the SOC generously, I find that it is unintelligible, incoherent, disjointed, and incapable of success.

a. In the majority of the first 57 paragraphs of the SOC, the Plaintiff refers to several events dealing with the RCMP, CSIS, CRA, the Municipalities in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the Superior Court of Quebec, and the Federal Court of Canada. I find that none of these institutions are obviously or materially related and/or connected with the relief sought against the Defendant.

b. The Plaintiff pleads that her status as a whistleblower forms the basis of her discriminatory claim against the Defendant. However, despite pleading 320 pages of material facts regarding her interactions with courthouse staff, I find that the Plaintiff does not establish the factual basis to establish for any kind of relief against the Defendant. The pleadings are devoid of any real and substantive connection between the Plaintiff’s whistleblowing status, her discriminatory complaints, and the conduct of courthouse staff.

c. The Plaintiff does not provide material facts that support her claim of discrimination under s. 15(1) of the Charter. The Plaintiff’s perceptions that the courthouse staff’s conduct has negatively impacted her interests, does not constitute material facts that are necessary to support her claim of discrimination.

d. The Plaintiff’s pleading goes beyond bad drafting. She makes bald, broad, and vague allegations against courthouse staff, she engages in rambling discourse, without any foundation or particulars to support her claims against the Defendant.

e. The Defendant is not able to know the case it must meet in order to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

[28] Second, it is apparent that the Plaintiff is attempting to relitigate past legal proceedings because she is not satisfied with the results or the outcome of her various lawsuits. While her allegations of wrongdoing are directed to the courthouse staff, these individuals were involved in the administration of the previous cases and lawsuits. In my view, one of the purposes for the Plaintiff’s extensive accusations of the courthouse staff’s misconduct, is to show that part of their administrative actions may have contributed to some of the unsuccessful decisions that were rendered by the judiciary. Accordingly, I believe that her pleading is an attempt to relitigate. This is an abuse of process.

[29] Third, and most importantly, courthouse staff enjoy statutory immunity for the allegations raised by the Plaintiff. The courthouse staff carried out their duties in the normal course, and as such, they are immune from personal liability in the exercise of their ordinary duties. The claim is therefore frivolous.

Disposition

[30] In summary, the Plaintiff’s claim falls within the definition of an abusive proceeding. It is frivolous because her claim cannot succeed, it is vexatious because her claim is simply brought to vex or harass the judicial officials and courthouse staff, and it is an abuse of process because she is trying to relitigate lawsuits that have already been decided.

[31] The Plaintiff’s action is dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules. The Defendant has not requested costs. There shall be no order as to costs.

M. Smith J Date: April 6, 2023