Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-140 DATE: 2023/05/19 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-ONTARIO

RE: HYUN-JUNE LEONARD RO, Plaintiff -and- WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE & ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE-SHELBURNE DETACHMENT & DAVID CLARK, Defendants

BEFORE: Gibson J.

COUNSEL: Hyun-June Leonard Ro, Self-Represented Plaintiff James H. Bennett, Counsel for the Defendants Waterloo Regional Police Service and David Clark

HEARD: May 18, 2023, in writing

Endorsement

Overview

[1] This action was commenced by the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated February 1, 2023. The Statement of Claim makes various allegations of criminal conduct against the Defendant David Clark, who is a police officer, including involvement in assault, child pornography, bestiality and voyeurism.

[2] On February 16, 2023, James Bennett, counsel for the Defendants Waterloo Regional Police Service (“WRPS”) and David Clark, wrote to the Registrar pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requesting an order dismissing the action on the basis that the proceeding on its face appears to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[3] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

RULE 2.1 GENERAL POWERS TO STAY OR DISMISS IF VEXATIOUS, ETC.

Stay, Dismissal of Frivolous, Vexatious, Abusive Proceeding

Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding

2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

Summary Procedure

(2) The court may make a determination under subrule (1) in a summary manner, subject to the procedures set out in this rule. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under subrule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures:

1. The court shall direct the registrar to give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, that the court is considering making the order.
2. The plaintiff or applicant may, within 15 days after receiving the notice, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the notice.
3. If the plaintiff or applicant does not file a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may make the order without any further notice to the plaintiff or applicant or to any other party.
4. If the plaintiff or applicant files a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may direct the registrar to give a copy of the submission to any other party.
5. A party who receives a copy of the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission may, within 10 days after receiving the copy, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission, and shall give a copy of the responding submission to the plaintiff or applicant and, on the request of any other party, to that party. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

(4) A document required under subrule (3) to be given to a party shall be mailed in the manner described in subclause 16.01 (4) (b) (i), and is deemed to have been received on the fifth day after it is mailed. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

Copy of Order

(5) The registrar shall serve a copy of the order by mail on the plaintiff or applicant as soon as possible after the order is made. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

Request for Order

(6) Any party to the proceeding may file with the registrar a written request for an order under subrule (1). O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

Notification of Court by Registrar

(7) If the registrar becomes aware that a proceeding could be the subject of an order under subrule (1), the registrar shall notify the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

Sequence of Events in the Process

[4] In his Endorsement dated February 24, 2023, Gordon J. directed the Registrar to give notice to the Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3) that the Court is considering making the Order requested, and advising him that he may file written submissions. This was done that same day.

[5] The Plaintiff Hyun-June Leonard Ro has delivered written submissions in response to that Notice, received on March 3, 2023, which he styled as a “Reply”. In his written submissions, Mr. Ro made a variety of bald and wild allegations against Justice Gordon, including that he did not have a law degree and was not an actual judge, that he was in a conflict of interest, that he was related to WRPS police officers, that he and Justice Catrina Braid had engaged in fraudulent behaviour, and that he was involved in covering up various criminal offences related to pornography and bestiality. He demanded that Gordon J. recuse himself.

[6] In his Endorsement dated March 7, 2023, Gordon J. directed the Registrar to deliver a copy of Mr. Ro’s written submission to Mr. Bennett, specifying that the Defendants might deliver responding written submissions as provided in Rule 2.1.01(3).

[7] In that Endorsement, Gordon J. also acceded to the request of Mr. Ro that he recuse himself from considering the matter, solely in order to avoid delay, and advised that another judge would be assigned to deal with the matter on its merits.

[8] In his letter dated March 15, 2023, Mr. Bennett provided responding written submissions pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)5.

[9] This matter has now been assigned to me.

Law and Analysis

[10] Rule 2.1.01 reflects the well-established principle that a court has the authority to control its own process and ensure that these processes are not abused. It is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the court: R. v. Jayaraj, 2014 ONSC 636 (Div.Ct.).

[11] In Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that Rule 2.1.01 should be interpreted and applied robustly so that a judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The use of the rule should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process.

[12] Decisions made under Rule 2.1.01 are discretionary decisions: Sumner v. Ottawa (Police Services), 2023 ONCA 140. The rule’s purpose is “nipping in the bud actions which are frivolous and vexatious in order to protect the parties opposite from inappropriate costs and to protect the court from misallocation of scarce resources”: Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664, at para. 3. The abusive nature of a proceeding must be obvious on the face of the pleadings themselves.

[13] In this case, there is no cause of action pleaded in the Statement of Claim. Rather, it consists of outlandish and offensive allegations of impropriety and criminal activity against the Defendant, David Clark, who is a police detective employed by the WRPS.

[14] In the present case, the pleadings are obviously implausible or ridiculous. For example, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s “cohorts took naked photos of Superior Court of Justice’s judge, namely Justice Lori Douglas and began posting these photos online,” and that “officers from the Ontario Provincial Police-Shelburne detachment were involved in the cover-up of a sexual assault on a minor in 2016, whereby an Asian child was injected in his genital area, then the OPP officers wrongfully accused an individual who had part in this ordeal. It is alleged that when the OPP officers found out about the sexual assault on a minor, officers tried to cover-up the sexual assault and also fabricated evidence of the assault in question.”

[15] The Plaintiff’s allegations in his pleading, to the extent they are discernable, and the associated relief claimed, are either non-justiciable or fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action: Brown v. Lloyd’s of London Insurance Market, 2015 ONCA 235.

[16] This is patently one of the clear cases that Rule 2.1 was intended to address. It is plain and obvious on the face of the Statement of Claim that the claim is abusive, frivolous and vexatious in nature, and bears the hallmarks of a frivolous and vexatious proceeding. These include that the statement of claim is unintelligible, consisting largely of legal conclusions and argument rather than an account of the facts that could give rise to a legal remedy, and it uses rhetorical questions, rambling discourse, and pseudo-legal jargon that has no meaning in modern Canadian law.

[17] On July 16, 2021, the Plaintiff was convicted of criminal harassment pursuant to s.264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, for harassing the Defendant, David Clark. I agree with the submission of counsel for the Defendants that it is abundantly clear on the face of the Statement of Claim that the action is only a continuation of the same harassment and an attack on David Clark.

[18] The Plaintiff’s “Reply” submission contains vile and outrageous allegations against members of the judiciary, Justice Gordon and Justice Braid, which only further demonstrate the abusive and vexatious nature of the Plaintiff’s claim. In Raji v. Myers, 2015 ONSC 4066, the plaintiffs made allegations and threats of legal action against the justice deciding whether to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1. The Court concluded that these are typical signs of a vexatious litigant that justified the use of the expedited process of Rule 2.1. The same indicia are apparent here.

[19] The Defendants’ request for an Order pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(6) will be granted. The action will be dismissed.

Order

[20] The Court Orders that:

1. The action is dismissed;
2. Any requirement to obtain the Plaintiff’s approval as to the form and content of the final Order is dispensed with;
3. The Registrar shall send a copy of this Endorsement to the Plaintiff by regular mail to the address for service on the Statement of Claim, as well as by email. The Defendants shall serve a copy of the final Order on the Plaintiffs by regular mail at their address for service on the Statement of Claim, and by email; and,
4. No costs were requested, and none are ordered.

M. Gibson J. Date: May 19, 2023