Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-691840-0000 DATE: 20230515 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Dillon Parris AND: His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, as represented by Minister of Government, Jeffrey Lem and Adam Mortimer
BEFORE: J.T. Akbarali J.
COUNSEL: Dillon Parris, in person Michael Saad, for the respondents
HEARD: In writing
Endorsement
[1]
Introduction
Counsel for the respondents has requested that the court consider dismissing this application under r. 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. On April 17, 2023, I released an endorsement indicating that the application may be frivolous, vexatious, or abusive because it did not appear to plead a tenable claim against the respondents. I also noted that the claim itself makes reference to related litigation, including as against these respondents, raising the possibility that the application is abusive.
2The applicant filed written submissions in response to my endorsement, as he was permitted to do. In the main, the written submissions quote from the applicant’s Notice of Application. Although entitled to, the respondents did not file any written submissions in response to the applicant’s submissions.
3In order to dismiss a proceeding under r. 2.1, the abusive nature of the proceeding must be apparent on the face of the pleadings themselves: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at paras. 7-9; Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, at para. 17.
[4]
Background
The application relates to a property owned by Mr. Parris and his wife, on which a mortgage was placed. The Notice of Application alleges that a deposit into Mr. Parris’s bank account (apparently the mortgage proceeds) was made by fraudsters, and that the bank relied on unsigned Standard Mortgage terms to enforce the mortgage in breach of the Criminal Code. There is some suggestion in the Notice of Application that the charge was not in default. It appears that the applicant agrees that he provided his real property as collateral for a line of credit with the bank.
5The issues around this charge have been the subject of multiple court proceedings. A default judgment was granted on October 13, 2015, and a writ of possession was issued on November 4, 2015. A Notice to Vacate was issued on November 9, 2014, by the Brampton Sheriff. Subsequently, the applicant moved to have the writ of possession set aside, which motion was denied by Gray J. on February 8, 2016.
6There was another motion heard on April 23, 2018, in Toronto, although it is not clear from the Notice of Application what the focus was of the proceeding in which it was brought. In that motion, the applicant argued that the mortgage claim was fraudulent. The applicant alleges that no decision was rendered in this motion.
7The applicant subsequently made a claim to the Land Title Assurance Fund, in June 2018, which was rejected.
8Another court proceeding was commenced in 2021, against Ontario and Mr. Lem, the Director of Titles for Ontario. Both Ontario and Mr. Lem are respondents in this proceeding, among others. The respondent Mr. Mortimer acted for the defendants in that 2021 proceeding. The applicant alleges that the defendants in that proceeding suppressed information and documents in that proceeding, which was dismissed by Dow J. in October 2021 under r. 2.1.
9The applicant alleges that the individual respondents herein, along with others, have committed numerous offences under the Criminal Code, and seeks an order that the director of titles or land registrar be compelled to delete the allegedly fraudulent instrument.
10It appears that in connection with the mortgage enforcement, the applicant was dispossessed of the property, and attempted to retake possession of it by calling 911 to have the occupants of the property removed. Police attended and arrested the applicant and charged him with mischief. The applicant alleges that he was falsely imprisoned. He claims that his rights under The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were breached, for which he seeks $50 million in damages.
[11]
Analysis
In my view, it is apparent on its face that the application is abusive. It seeks to relitigate the validity of the mortgage enforcement, which has been dealt with by the court on numerous occasions already. The allegations in the Notice of Application include allegations that formed part of the 2021 proceeding that was dismissed by Dow J.
12I note that the Notice of Application also fails to plead claims that are recognizable at law. Some of the flaws in the pleadings could be addressed by a pleadings amendment, but others cannot be. For example, a private citizen does not have the right to seek a private remedy for an alleged breach of the Criminal Code. A civil claim must make out a civil cause of action. However, even if the claim could be amended to sound in a known civil cause of action, the abusive nature of the proceeding would remain.
[13]
Disposition
In the result, I dismiss the application under r. 2.1.
J.T. Akbarali J.
Date: May 15, 2023