Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-694462 DATE: 20230731 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: RUDY, Applicant AND: CHARLES III, THE KING, Respondent

COUNSEL: Michele Valentini, for the Respondent

HEARD IN WRITING BEFORE: Justice D.G. Stinson READ: August 28, 2023

Endorsement

[1] This matter was initially referred to me by the Registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure following receipt of a written request of counsel for the Respondent (the Province of Ontario) under subrule 2.1.01(6). In my endorsement dated July 31, 2023, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the Applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the application.

[2] In response to the Registrar’s notice, on August 15, 2023, the Applicant filed a document containing their submission as to why the application should not be dismissed. In turn, on August 25, 2023, the Respondent filed responding submissions. This endorsement contains my ruling after reviewing both parties’ submissions.

[3] In this proceeding the Applicant seeks various relief, including that they be permitted to use an apartment at a Toronto Community Housing Corporation dwelling, or otherwise be provided with a suitable dwelling; that a “qualified person” assist them with obtaining access to an apartment; that they receive “protection” against persons that may cause harm or could likely cause harm to them; and to make funds that are subject to a personal property registration.

[4] As I noted in my original endorsement, much of the Notice of Application recites facts and assertions including biblical and other references that have no bearing on a legal remedy known to our Court system. To the extent identifiable relief is sought, it appears that the Applicant seeks to regain occupancy of an apartment on Lawrence Avenue East in Toronto.

[5] The remedy that the Applicant apparently seeks in relation to the apartment is not properly the subject of an application proceeding against the Crown in the Superior Court of Justice. Rather, if appropriate and available, such a remedy must be pursued by way of a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17.

[6] As to the balance of the relief sought, in their submissions the Applicant seems to assert, without a recognizable legal basis, that by virtue of their birth certificate, Ontario (as the Respondent) is obliged to provide for their "needs and welfare"; that a "trust relationship" exists between the parties; and that there are funds held in a "personal property security registration" that could be made available to the Applicant to provide relief against "hardship and vulnerability". The Applicant repeats a complaint about not having, or having surrendered, their identification documents. The Applicant also asserts, again without a recognizable legal basis, that they are entitled to equitable relief.

[7] Rule 2.1 is a tool available to parties and the administration of justice that protects against “the well-understood harms of frivolous and vexatious proceedings and those which are an abuse of the process of the court.” I acknowledge that the rule “is not meant to apply to close calls” and its availability is limited to 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.” See: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at paras. 7-9.

[8] In my view, despite the submissions filed by the Applicant, this proceeding has no legal merit as it is currently pleaded. In other words, on the face of the Notice of Application it may properly be considered frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Accordingly, and in light of the fact that the Landlord and Tenant Board is the tribunal that exercises jurisdiction over residential tenancy matters, the Applicant must seek such remedy as is properly available at law through that process. The balance of the relief sought is unavailable in law.

[9] I therefore order that the application be dismissed, without costs.

D.G. Stinson J. Date: August 28, 2023