Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-20-85264 Date: 2023/07/05 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] This endorsement follows a request received on behalf of the defendant, TD Canada Trust (“the Bank”) and my endorsement dated June 20, 2023 (Andoseh v. TD Canada Trust, 2023 ONSC 3711 – the “the Endorsement”). The request was sent, and the Endorsement was issued, under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (“Rules”).

[2] In the Endorsement, I directed the registrar to give Mr. Andoseh notice informing him that the court was considering making an order for dismissal of the action in its entirety. Mr. Andoseh was given that notice and given 15 days – following receipt of the notice – within which to file responding written submissions by email. Mr. Andoseh was also advised that, if he did not file written submissions within the specified time frame, the court may, without further notice to him, make an order dismissing the action against both defendants.

[3] In response to the notice, Mr. Andoseh filed many documents. None of the documents amounted to submissions in response to the notice, under r. 2.1.01 sent to Mr. Andoseh by the registrar. On my instruction, the registrar informed Mr. Andoseh that the documents filed were not submissions within the meaning of the r. 2.1.01 process. In the same communication, Mr. Andoseh was given another opportunity to file submissions responsive to the registrar’s notice.

[4] In response to that second communication from the registrar, Mr. Andoseh filed what is effectively a three-page document. On the first page, Mr. Andoseh introduces the substantive content with the heading “Without Prejudice” in bold and entirely capitalized letters. Mr. Andoseh then thanks the court for the opportunity to clarify and re-affirm his position as set out in the statement of claim.

[5] The substantive content of Mr. Andoseh’s submissions is in the form of a two-page chart. The chart is a chronology of events dating from early March 2020 to June 6, 2023. The chart repeats some of the contents of the statement of claim and is otherwise evidence. The chart does not include any submissions.

[6] Mr. Andoseh asks the court to consider the contents of the chart and adds, “A reply to Statement of defence was impossible because all allegations were denied.” The Bank made a request under r. 2.1.01 and has therefore not delivered a statement of defence. Why Mr. Andoseh refers to a pleading from the Bank is unclear.

[7] Upon receipt of submissions from the plaintiff in response to a notice under r. 2.1.01, the court has the discretion to either request responding submissions from the defendant(s) who made the r. 2.1.01 request or to determine the r. 2.1.01 request without giving the defendant(s) an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s submissions. I do not require submissions from the Bank in response to Mr. Andoseh’s submissions. I am able to determine the r. 2.1.01 request based on the materials before the court.

[8] In accordance with the principles reviewed in the Endorsement, and for the following reasons, I order that the action is dismissed, without costs, in its entirety – including as against the Bank and the individual defendants.

[9] At paragraphs 9 to 16 of the Endorsement, I set out the deficiencies in the statement of claim; I shall not repeat them here. I rely on those deficiencies in support of my conclusion that the statement of claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. I find that there is no legitimate cause of action buried in the pleading: Fleischhaker v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group and Attwood, 2020 ONSC 980, at para. 7. Put another way, there is no real issue at the heart of Mr. Andoseh’s pleading: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 18.

[10] Rule 2.1 is a process that permits the court to bring “fair and just resolutions to a particular category of disputes in a proportionate, timely and affordable way”: Gao, at para. 12.

[11] In at least three decisions, the Court of Appeal for Ontario highlights that dismissal of an action under r. 2.1.01 is a blunt instrument, reserved for the clearest of cases (Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 488; Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625, 138 O.R. (3d) 581; and Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320, 446 D.L.R. (4th) 575, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 39321 (January 28, 2021)).

[12] By inviting Mr. Andoseh to make written submissions, the court exercised caution before exercising its jurisdiction under r. 2.1.01 to dismiss the claim in its entirety: Khan v. Law Society, at para. 15.

[13] Applying the procedure under r. 2.1.01 to this action serves the purpose of nipping in the bud an action which is frivolous and vexatious, protecting the defendants from inappropriate costs, and protecting the court from misallocation of scarce resources: Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664, at para. 3.

[14] In addition, through the application of the procedure under r. 2.1.01, the court fulfils its role as a gatekeeper of the justice system. In Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at para. 21, Pepall J.A. says, “Abusive litigants should be screened out of the system so that parties with true justiciable disputes may have them adjudicated by the courts.”

Disposition

[15] In this clearest of cases, the application of the blunt instrument provided by r. 2.1.01 is appropriate. The action is dismissed in its entirety and without costs.

Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn Date: July 5, 2023