Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-0244-00 DATE: 2023-10-23

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Gordon Gravelle, Applicant v. Thunder Bay Police Service Board et al, Respondents

HEARD: October 19, 2023 BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J. COUNSEL: Gordon Gravelle representing himself in person

Endorsement on Application for Leave to Continue Claim

Background

[1] Gordon Gravelle is a vexatious litigant. He was so found by Newton J. (as he then was) after a three day hearing in April 2018. The material portion of the order of Newton J. of July 11, 2018 (the “Order”) for the purposes of this hearing provides:

THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that:

a. Neither Gravelle nor any company Gravelle controls shall:

I. institute any proceedings in any court, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. This does not apply to an appeal of this decision.

II. continue any proceedings previously instituted, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

b. If Gravelle or any company Gravelle controls:

I. seeks to institute or continue proceedings or appeals in any court governed by the Courts of Justice Act, without first filling an entered order permitting him and/or it to do so, that proceeding shall immediately be stayed upon any person filling a copy of this order.

II. makes an application for leave to initiate or continue any proceeding in any court governed by the Courts of Justice Act, he and/or it shall provide written notice of such application to the Attorney General of Ontario and to the applicant and any proposed defendant at least 10 days before the application is brought.

III. obtains leave to continue any proceeding in any court governed by the Courts of Justice Act, he and/or it must first satisfy in full all outstanding costs orders made against him and/or it in that proceeding.

[2] Despite these very clear terms that Mr. Gravelle was ordered to follow so that he could obtain leave to institute new proceedings, he nevertheless had a statement of claim issued by the Superior Court at Thunder Bay on April 28, 2022 (the “Claim”) without obtaining leave of the court to do so. For whatever reason, Mr. Gravelle waited until June 20, 2023, to bring the within application for leave to commence the Claim further to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43 (the Act).

[3] Interestingly, on September 21, 2022, Mr. Gravelle appeared in the Superior Court of Justice at Thunder Bay before Newton J. attempting to obtain leave to continue a proceeding against his former lawyer. Newton J. refused leave and dismissed Mr. Gravelle’s proceeding (Gravelle v. Ministry of Attorney General et al, 2022 ONSC 6057 [Gravelle]). At paragraph 4 of that decision, Newton J. recited portions of his original decision finding Mr. Gravelle a vexatious litigant, stating:

[4] In my reasons for making the order under s. 140, I summarized Mr. Gravelle’s history in court proceedings in 46 paragraphs and then concluded:

[47] Mr. Gravelle has appeared or sought to appear in this court over 100 times since 2013. He has sought to have decisions of this court reconsidered. He has appealed to the Court of Appeal unsuccessfully.

[48] As the excerpts from decisions outlined above indicate, many of the characteristics of vexatious litigants as outlined by Campbell J. in Dobson v. Green, supra, are present in Mr. Gravelle’s litigation:

• ignoring adverse rulings and procedural setbacks
• resorting to multiple, repetitive proceedings, often against the same adversary
• launching court proceedings as if unconcerned about financial resources invariably consumed by such actions
• persistently abusing the court process
• bringing one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by the court
• rolling forward issues raised previously into subsequent actions
• failing to pay costs of unsuccessful proceedings
• persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions.

The Law

[4] Section 140(3) and (4) of the Act provides:

Vexatious Proceedings

140(3) Application for leave to proceed

Where a person against whom an order under subsection (1) has been made seeks leave to institute or continue a proceeding, the person shall do so by way of an application in the Superior Court of Justice.

140(4) Leave to proceed

Where an application for leave is made under subsection (3),

(a) leave shall be granted only if the court is satisfied that the proceeding sought to be instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding;

(b) the person making the application for leave may seek the rescission of the order made under subsection (1) but may not seek any other relief on the application;

(c) the court may rescind the order made under subsection (1);

(d) the Attorney General is entitled to be heard on the application; and

(e) no appeal lies from a refusal to grant relief to the applicant.

[5] In the relatively recent decision Falardeau v. Owen Sound (City) Police Service Board, 2021 ONSC 6190 [Falardeau], Chown J. in paragraphs 54-95 usefully summarized the jurisprudence regarding the test for granting leave to a declared vexatious litigant to commence a new proceeding. Particularly, paragraphs 69–71 and 75–80 were cited with approval by Newton J. in Gravelle in determining to dismiss Mr. Gravelle’s proceeding against his former lawyer.

[6] Falardeau emphasizes the following important principles in paragraphs 54-95:

• the Court’s inherent right to control its own process and its supervisory role to ensure that resort to the court for vexatious litigants will only be on those occasions where they have a genuine reason or need to do so (paras. 58-68);
• the onus is on a declared vexatious litigant to demonstrate that the proposed proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings (paras 69-71);
• a vexatious litigant order is a serious curtailment of a basis civil right but one that is necessary to protect the targets of the vexatious litigant against unreasonable claims (para 62);
• “reasonable grounds” is a moderate threshold which suggests that the applicant is not required to show he is likely to succeed, however, it does imply that the applicant must show that the proceeding has some substance and potential merit. The test is not whether, conceptually, there’s an arguable claim (paras. 75-78).

The Claim

[7] The Claim asserts that Mr. Gravelle has been libeled by all the defendants. The alleged libel arises from three reports published online on January 25 and 26, 2022. Mr. Gravelle had notice of these publications on January 28, 2022.

[8] The reports concerned Mr. Gravelle being arrested along with three other individuals during an afternoon traffic stop on January 24, 2022, in Thunder Bay. The Claim asserts that Mr. Gravelle was libeled as the reports made by the defendants readily imply that Mr. Gravelle was directly involved in human trafficking and that he was directly associated with a criminal organization operating in the City of Thunder Bay. The Claim asserts that Mr. Gravelle was acting as a u-ride type driver at the time and had no knowledge of the handgun being carried by one of the passengers in the car. He asserts that the Thunder Bay police officers were aware that Mr. Gravelle claimed that his status was only as a driver on that particular occasion. Nevertheless, Mr. Gravelle was charged, along with the other occupants, for firearm related offences.

[9] The basis of Mr. Gravelle’s claim is that the published reports did not include the “salient” information that Mr. Gravelle asserted that he was only the operator of the u-ride service. He claims that the defendants willfully excluded this information from the reports, which were then published with malice by naming him personally.

[10] Mr. Gravelle served a libel notice on the defendants as required by the provisions of section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. L-12. The defendants did not apologize or print retractions of their account of the events complained of in the Claim.

Disposition

[11] Mr. Gravelle did not seek rescission of the vexatious litigant declaration in the application before the Court. I find no basis to rescind the order of Newton J. of April 2018. In my view the Claim is an abuse of process. Furthermore, Mr. Gravelle has not demonstrated that this Claim has potential merit. I say this for the following reasons.

[12] Mr. Gravelle was before the Superior Court in September 2022, seeking leave to continue a claim. Clearly, he was aware in 2022 of the court order necessitating him to obtain leave to issue the Claim from April 2022. He ignored this order. In my view this is an act that borders on contempt of court.

[13] The Order also required Mr. Gravelle to serve the applicant in the original vexatious litigation proceedings with the within application and the Claim. He did not do this. Mr. Gravelle also ignored that part of the Order. He advised in oral argument he did not think he had to comply with that portion of the Order.

[14] In my view, these two circumstances evidence that notwithstanding the Court’s clear and unequivocal orders, Mr. Gravelle does not comply. He continues to ignore these clear and direct orders. Ignoring court orders is a hallmark of a vexatious litigant. The court cannot countenance this kind of abuse of its process. The Order was made after a long and arduous process. It seems to have had no effect on Mr. Gravelle as he continues to ignore court orders. These are the actions of a vexatious litigant.

[15] Mr. Gravelle was dealing with a libel claim which has a relatively short time frame for the issuance of a statement of claim. I note that Mr. Gravelle issued this application on June 20, 2023, and had a court appearance by ZOOM in the regular Thunder Bay motions court on September 27, 2023. This appearance is unusual as the application on its face indicates it was to be heard in writing as is the usual process for applications under section 140. In any event, Mr. Gravelle did not appear in motions court as scheduled on September 27, 2023. He was given a date for an oral hearing for less than a month later. This is despite the fact that judicial resources in our region are under tremendous pressure due to the particular demands of criminal cases in Thunder Bay in recent times. This court can still act quickly on matters if there is an urgent need to do so.

[16] Mr. Gravelle should have made his application for leave to commence a new proceeding in February 2022 when he was of the view that he was allegedly libeled. He did not take that step. He had a claim issued by the Court when he knew he could not do so without leave. He took advantage of the fact that Court Services Division apparently does not keep a roster of vexatious litigants. Given the demands on Court Services Division these days, this is not surprising. It has a lot more important things to do to serve the public and fulfil its constitutional role of providing access to justice. However, it does demonstrate how our court systems and rules of proceeding rely on an underlying assumption that people will comply with the rules and obey court orders. Sadly, this seems to be an assumption that is growing less and less reliable in these post-Covid days.

[17] Mr. Gravelle’s conduct thus far is evidence of a person who does not take the orders of the court seriously and does not respect the authority of the court to control its own process. This application is an abuse of process because it is made in the face of a flagrant breach of a clear and unequivocal court order.

[18] I also find that Mr. Gravelle has not demonstrated that the Claim has some substance or potential merit. Mr. Gravelle asserts the publications at issue painted him as a human trafficker and his being involved in a criminal organization. On a plain reading of the publications, they do no such thing, nor do they imply such things. The publications are factual accounts that Mr. Gravelle was arrested on January 24, 2023. The sum of the text in the publication made by the Thunder Bay police and Dougall Media on its TBnewswatch.com web page referring to Mr. Gravelle is as follows:

Gordon Robert Gravelle, 50 of Thunder Bay is charged with:

-Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose -Carless Transportation of a Firearm -Unauthorized possession of a Firearm without a licence -Unauthorized possession of a Prohibited or Restricted Weapon -Possession of a Firearm with Knowledge its Possession is Unauthorized -Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle -Prohibited or Restricted Firearm with Ammunition…

All accused appeared in bail court on Tuesday Jan 25. MYERS and KENG were remanded into custody with future appearance dates. GRAVELLE is expected to be released with conditions and a future occurrence date.

[19] The publication in the Chronicle Journal was slightly different. It did not recount all the charges against Mr. Gravelle. It stated, in respect of Mr. Gravelle,

Bachoo is also accused of offences related to a weapon and firearm, as are Gordon Robert Gravelle, 50, of Thunder Bay, Alex Keng 18, of Kitchener Ont, and Shamar Christopher Myers 28, of Brampton Ont.

[20] In all publications at issue, a clear identification is made of a Brampton man, Isaiah Bachoo, 20, being arrested as the result of an ongoing investigation into human trafficking. Mr. Bachoo is also noted as being charged with human trafficking, kidnapping, sexual assault and assault with a weapon causing bodily harm, among other charges. The Thunder Bay police and Dougall Media publications expressly identify the charges relating to possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking as being made against Mr. Meyers.

[21] There are no allegations or words contained in the publication that identify or imply Mr. Gravelle as having anything to do with to human trafficking or being a member of a criminal organization or conspiring to be a member of a criminal conspiracy or to possess or traffic illegal substances. Yet this is the essence of the Claim as issued (improperly). In my view the Claim does not have merit. The Claim is therefore unreasonable in the context of a consideration for the purposes of granting leave to a declared vexatious litigant.

[22] Accordingly, I find there is no reasonable basis for the allegations and the alleged libel that is set out in the Claim.

[23] Mr. Gravelle has not satisfied me on the material filed that the Claim is not an abuse of process or that there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding.

[24] The Claim and this application are dismissed.

“original signed by” The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-0244-00 DATE: 2023-10-23 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Gordon Gravelle, Applicant v. Thunder Bay Police Service Board et al, Respondents HEARD: October 19, 2023 BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J. COUNSEL: Mr. Gravelle representing himself in person ENDORSEMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CONTINUE CLAIM Fitzpatrick J. DATE: October 23, 2023