COURT FILE NO.: CV-2391267
DATE: 2023/08/25
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Ottawa Police Services Board (Applicant/Responding Party)
AND
Deirdre Moore (Respondent/Moving Party)
BEFORE: Justice Sylvia Corthorn
COUNSEL: Michelle Doody and Sam Campbell, for the applicant/responding party
Deirdre Moore, self-represented respondent/moving party
HEARD: August 24, 2023 (By videoconference)
endorsement
Introduction
[1] In this proceeding, the Ottawa Police Services Board (“the Board”) seeks a declaration that Deirdre Moore (“Ms. Moore”) is a vexatious litigant. The application is scheduled to be heard on October 5, 2023. In March 2023, Associate Justice Fortier set a timetable for the exchange of materials and completion of steps leading up to the return of the Board’s application.
[2] Ms. Moore brings a motion for relief related to the timetable set in March 2023, for an adjournment of the hearing of the application to a date subsequent to October 5, 2023, for leave to amend her pleading, and for an order requiring the Board to return Ms. Moore’s passport or Passport Canada to issue Ms. Moore a new passport.
[3] In addition, Ms. Moore asks the court to order that the Board immediately pay to her,
a) costs in the amount of $24,482.50;
b) $100,000 based on “Bad Faith exhibited by” the Board to Ms. Moore; and
c) as a “pre-judgment, partial damage award” (emphasis in the original document), the sum of $1,000,000.
[4] Before turning to the substantive matters raised by Ms. Moore’s materials, I will first address Ms. Moore’s request, made on the return of the motion, for me to recuse myself because of alleged historical bias against Ms. Moore.
The Request for Recusal
[5] Ms. Moore’s request that I recuse myself from the matter was heard without the benefit of any written materials or any case or other authorities filed by Ms. Moore.
[6] Ms. Moore was previously before me in the matter of Moore v. Addelman et al., 2023 ONSC 3692. In June 2023, I heard a motion by the defendant, Addelman, for an order setting aside a noting in default. The relief requested was granted, without costs to either the defendant, Addelman, or Ms. Moore.
[7] Ms. Moore submits that there are four ways in which the conduct of the motion and the outcome on it support a finding that I demonstrated bias against her. Those four ways are as follows:
• The outcome on the motion runs contrary to the contents of the materials filed by Ms. Moore in response to the defendant, Addelman’s motion. Ms. Moore submits that the contents of her materials clearly showed that the defendants were lying;
• In determining the motion, I addressed only the factors/topics raised by the defendant, Addelman, in support of the relief they were seeking. I limited Ms. Moore’s submissions to responding to those factors and did not permit her to expand her submission to go beyond the factors relevant to a motion to set aside a noting in default;
• I ruled in favour of the defendant, Addelman – granting the motion for an order setting aside the noting in default – despite the “clear evidence” filed by Ms. Moore in support of her position in the action itself; and
• By refusing to permit Ms. Moore to rely on documents and information for which hyperlinks were provided in her materials, I reduced the value of that aspect of her evidence to zero. Refusing to permit Ms. Moore to rely on materials accessed by hyperlink runs contrary to r. 2.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and the discretion the court has to address “irregularities”.
[8] Counsel for the Board informed the court that the Board was not requesting that I recuse myself from the matter.
[9] Following a recess, during which I reviewed my decision in Moore v. Addelman et al., I rendered my decision and provided oral reasons. These written reasons are an adjunct to the oral reasons. I determined that Ms. Moore had not demonstrated bias and I did not recuse myself.
[10] In summary, the reasons given for my decision were as follows. First, I am satisfied that the decision in Moore v. Addelman et al. reflects a fair and fulsome consideration of the factors relevant to a motion for an order setting aside a noting in default. Second, the fact that a party is unsuccessful in a matter does not mean that the judge presiding over the subject event is biased against the unsuccessful party. Third, the approach taken to the reliance on hyperlinking of materials does not support a conclusion that I am biased against Ms. Moore.
[11] I turn to the substantive relief requested by Ms. Moore in her materials.
The Relief Sought by Ms. Moore
[12] Ms. Moore’s requests to address the timing for the delivery and quantity of materials she intends to rely on in response to the application is a matter which should be before Fortier A.J., as the judicial officer who (a) set the original timetable, and (b) oversees timetables for applications, motions for summary judgment, and long motions. I directed that Ms. Moore take the steps necessary to bring the matter before Fortier A.J. in the appropriate manner – likely a case conference, although the form of the appearance is entirely within the discretion of Fortier A.J.
[13] Ms. Moore is scheduled to be cross-examined in early September 2023. She informs the court that the timetable set by Fortier A.J. requires that cross-examinations take place in person. Ms. Moore lives outside the Province of Ontario. On her motion she requests a change to the requirement for the parties to attend for cross-examination in person. Ms. Moore wishes to attend for cross-examination by videoconference.
[14] I directed Ms. Moore to address with counsel for the Board and, if necessary, with Fortier A.J. the manner in which cross-examinations are to be conducted.
[15] Ms. Moore also seeks leave to amend her statement of claim in an action in which she is the plaintiff, and the Board is a defendant. Ms. Moore is required to bring the motion for leave to amend her statement of claim within that proceeding (i.e., not within this application).
[16] The order made at the conclusion of this endorsement addresses when and how that motion may be brought. The “when” includes that the motion may not be brought until after the Board’s application for a declaration that Ms. Moore is a vexatious litigant is finally determined. It is neither cost-effective nor efficient for the motion for leave to amend to be determined before the Board’s application in this proceeding is finally determined.
[17] I also directed Ms. Moore to pursue relief related to her passport in the context of the action against the Board and to consider how she would involve “Passport Canada” (or the proper institutional responding party) in the motion.
[18] Simply put, Ms. Moore is not entitled to any of the specific monetary relief sought on the return of the motion. Her entitlement to monetary relief remains to be addressed in her action against the Board and when costs of this application are determined.
Disposition
[19] For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
Ms. Moore’s request for me to recuse myself from hearing the matter is dismissed.
Ms. Moore’s motion for relief related to the timing of the exchange of materials, the quantity of materials, the return date for the application, and the manner in which cross-examinations are to proceed is adjourned and shall continue before Associate Justice Fortier.
Ms. Moore shall take the steps necessary to bring her request for the relief listed in item 2, above, before Associate Justice Fortier.
Ms. Moore’s motion for leave to amend her statement of claim is dismissed without prejudice to Ms. Moore bringing a motion, in the action in which Ms. Moore is the plaintiff and the Ottawa Police Services Board is a defendant, for leave to amend her pleading.
Ms. Moore shall be prohibited from bringing the motion for leave to amend, referred to in paragraph 4, above, until such time as this application is finally determined.
The motion for relief related to Ms. Moore’s passport is dismissed without prejudice to Ms. Moore pursuing the same relief in a motion within the action in which she is a plaintiff, and the Ottawa Police Services Board is a defendant and/or another proceeding, the subject of which is the return of her passport.
Ms. Moore’s motion for monetary relief including costs in the amount of $24,482.50, costs in the amount of $100,000 for bad faith, and a pre-judgment, partial damage award in the amount of $1,000,000 is dismissed without prejudice to Ms. Moore (a) requesting her costs of the application following a final determination of the application, and (b) pursuing her claim for damages in the action in which she is named as a plaintiff and the Ottawa Police Services Board is a defendant.
[20] The costs of the parties’ appearance before the court today shall form part of the costs of the application and shall be addressed by the judge presiding over the application.
Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn
Date: August 25, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CV-2391267
DATE: 2023/08/25
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Ottawa Police Services Board (Applicant/Responding Party)
AND
Deirdre Moore (Respondent/Moving Party)
BEFORE: Justice Sylvia Corthorn
COUNSEL: Michelle Doody and Sam Campbell, for the applicant/responding party
Deirdre Moore, self-represented respondent/moving party
HEARD: August 24, 2023 (By videoconference)
ENDORSEMENT
Corthorn J.
Released: August 25, 2023