Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-20-85264 Date: 2023/06/20 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Nathanael Andoseh, Plaintiff And TD Canada Trust, Manalo Jordan, Graham Hodges, Defendants

Before: Justice Sylvia Corthorn

Counsel: Mr. Andoseh, as a self-represented plaintiff Allison Spiegel, for the defendant, TD Canada Trust No one appearing for the defendants, Manolo Jordan and Graham Hodges

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

[1] In a letter dated May 9, 2023 addressed to the Registrar of this court (“the Letter”), counsel for TD Canada Trust (“the Bank”) makes a request in writing under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (“Rules”).

[2] The Letter came before the court in June 2023. The Bank’s counsel requests that the court make an order under r. 2.1.01(1) dismissing the action against the Bank. In support of that request, the Bank’s counsel submits that the action against the Bank “appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.”

[3] A copy of the statement of claim is enclosed with the Letter. In the balance of this endorsement, I refer to the originating process as “the Pleading”.

[4] The Pleading does not include a court stamp, or any information added by the court staff electronically, to identify the date on which the statement of claim was issued. Both the Pleading and the information for court use (Form 14F) include a handwritten date of December 14, 2020. The handwriting may well be Mr. Andoseh’s. In any event, for the purpose of this endorsement, the date on which the Pleading was issued is irrelevant.

The Letter of Request

[5] Before turning to the substance of the request for the action against the Bank to be administratively dismissed, I first address its form. A request under r. 2.1.01 is to be restricted to “one or two lines” and limited to identifying the specific relief sought (Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801, at para. 12).

[6] In the Letter, the Bank’s counsel states that the Pleading “contains the hallmarks of a vexatious [] pleading and ought to be dismissed as such.” The square brackets in the preceding quote replace a footnote which appears in the original. The footnote references the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at paras. 18-20. The footnote includes a hyperlink to the decision in Lochner. The Bank’s counsel also includes in the Letter a series of four bullet points in which she provides examples of the alleged hallmarks of a vexatious pleading.

[7] The inclusion of the statement, the footnote (i.e., a case citation), the hyperlink to the decision, and the bullet-point list is not permitted when a request is made for dismissal of the action under r. 2.1.01. The statement and the bullet-point list are argument. Counsel must refrain from the inclusion of such content in a letter in support of a request for dismissal of an action under r. 2.1.01.

[8] I therefore disregard the portions of the letter discussed in paragraphs 6 and 7, above.

The Statement of Claim

[9] Three defendants are named in the title of proceeding. Yet, in para. 1 of the Pleading, Mr. Andoseh “claims against the Defendant” only and thereafter sets out the relief he is seeking.

[10] The only reference to the individual defendants is at para. 5 of the Pleading. Mr. Andoseh therein alleges, “The Plaintiff states that he was fresh out of jail, and going through serious financial distress and that was echoed in correspondence to his employer in which Manalo and Graham were copied.”

[11] The confusion between a singular defendant and multiple defendants pervades the Pleading. The singular, “the Defendant” or “the defendant”, is used at paras. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14 of the Pleading. The sole allegation made against multiple defendants is set out at para. 8. Mr. Andoseh therein makes the following allegation: “The Plaintiff states that the Defendants actions inhibited his access to credit and affected his credit record preventing future refinancing.”

[12] The only date identified in the statement of claim is “April 17, 2019” (para. 4). Mr. Andoseh alleges that he was denied service when he attempted, on that date, to make a withdrawal from his “LIRA and RLSP accounts”. Mr. Andoseh does not identify where he was when he attempted to make that withdrawal (i.e., at a branch of or some other location affiliated with the Bank).

[13] Mr. Andoseh identifies other conduct on the part of “the Defendant” or “the defendant” upon which he relies in support of his claim for damages. This other conduct includes the following:

• Deliberately pushing Mr. Andoseh to sell off some of his investments and pay penalties for the early closing of a mortgage (para. 9);
• Closing Mr. Andoseh’s accounts in 30 days, after giving him notice (para. 6); and
• Delaying the transfer of funds (para. 13).

[14] It is not clear when, in relation to April 17, 2019, the conduct described in paras. 6, 9, and 13 of the Pleading is alleged to have occurred.

[15] I agree with the Bank that there are a number of problems with the statement of claim. Those problems include the following:

• In para. 3, Mr. Andoseh refers to a singular defendant when there are three named defendants. He fails to meet the requirements for the identification or description of a corporation (i.e., the Bank) as a party to a proceeding; and
• Mr. Andoseh fails to meet the requirements of the Rules with respect to the identification of damages and losses he alleges he suffered as a result of the conduct of either of the named defendants.

[16] I find that the statement of claim has some of the hallmarks of litigation that is frivolous and vexatious. For example, it is somewhat rambling. As another example, the sentence structure is, at times, such that the substantive text is difficult to understand. The causes of action that Mr. Andoseh is advancing are difficult to discern.

Disposition

[17] Despite the problems with and deficiencies in the Pleading, I recognize that “there may be a legitimate cause of action buried in the pleading”: Fleischhaker v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group and Attwood, 2020 ONSC 980, at para. 7.

[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal highlights that dismissal of an action under r. 2.1.01 is a blunt instrument, reserved for the clearest of cases: see Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733. I find it reasonable to allow Mr. Andoseh, who is self-represented, an opportunity to make submissions to the court before further consideration is given to making an order dismissing the action against the Bank.

[19] Under r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a 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”. It is not clear what relationship, if any, the two individual defendants named in this action have.

[20] I find that it is both cost-effective and just to address the claims against the individual defendants at the same time as the claims against the Bank. To do otherwise could lead to inefficiencies and unnecessarily increase the costs to the parties. It is important that Mr. Andoseh understand that the court will, in accordance with the timetable set out below, be considering dismissal of the action in its entirety.

[21] I direct as follows: a) The registrar shall give Mr. Andoseh notice informing him that the court is considering making an order for dismissal of the action in its entirety. A copy of this endorsement and a 2.1A notice shall be emailed to him; b) Mr. Andoseh 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 Mr. Andoseh does not file written submissions within the specified time frame, the court may, without further notice to Mr. Andoseh, make an order dismissing the action against all defendants; d) If Mr. Andoseh files written submissions in accordance with this direction, the registrar shall provide a copy of Mr. Andoseh’s submissions to the defendant Bank by emailing a copy of them to the Bank’s counsel and to the individual defendants by regular mail at the branch address to which the statement of claim is addressed (103 Laurentian Avenue, North Bay, ON, P1B 9T2); e) Each defendant may, no later than 10 days after receiving Mr. Andoseh’s submissions, file responding written submissions by email of no more than 10 pages in length. In that case, the responding defendant shall email a copy of their submissions to Mr. Andoseh and to the other defendant or their counsel as is appropriate; and f) After considering any submissions received pursuant to this order, the court shall determine whether the claim ought to be struck, in its entirety, under r. 2.1.01.

[22] The action is stayed, pursuant to s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, until this court has made a final decision on the requisition under r. 2.1.01 or it makes another order varying this direction.

[23] In the meantime, the Registrar shall not permit any party to file any procedures or documents except in accordance with this endorsement, and no dates for motions shall be scheduled.

Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn Date: June 20, 2023