Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-00704029-0000 Date: 2023-11-06 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Andrew Curnew And: Suzanne Hunt et. al.

Before: J.T. Akbarali J.

Counsel: Andrew Curnew, in person Solomon McKenzie, for the defendants Dr. Robert Kyle, Dr. Hsu, and Dr. Lynn Noseworthy

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

[1] Counsel for the defendants Dr. Kyle, Dr. Hsu and Dr. Noseworthy has requested that the court consider dismissing this action under r. 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The request has been forwarded to me for review.

[2] It appears that the action may be frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

[3] The claim is 47 pages long. It is both detailed, and lacking particulars. It is written as if the reader understands some background facts that are nowhere elucidated in the claim.

[4] The claim is very confusing and raises serious jurisdictional concerns. For example:

a. The plaintiff pleads that the defendant Hunt, who is a lawyer, introduced irrelevant evidence about the plaintiff’s credibility before an HSARB panel. It does not explain what the panel was about, why the plaintiff (who describes himself as a dental consultant, not a dentist) was before the panel, or why arguments about the relevance or irrelevance of evidence before HSARB warrant an action in the Superior Court of Justice.

b. The plaintiff raises complaints about regulatory investigations into his wife’s dental practice, and makes allegations of professional misconduct against the defendants. The defendants are all individuals. It is not clear to me why any of these allegations are appropriately the subject of an action brought by the plaintiff in the Superior Court of Justice.

c. The plaintiff seeks a monetary remedy from the individual defendants for alleged breaches of Charter rights. The Charter does not appear to apply.

d. The plaintiff alleges malicious prosecution against the defendants, who are individuals, but without any particulars, or any basis for why a malicious prosecution action would lie against these individuals.

e. The plaintiff claims that the defendants breached the duty of care they owed to the public, without explaining what that duty was, or how a breach of any duty owed to the public translates into a claim by him against the defendants.

f. The plaintiff switches the pronoun used in the claim when describing the plaintiff, from he to she. Given that he seems to implicate allegations about treatment of his wife, it is not clear what he is claiming are his damages as opposed to hers, or whether she is making any claim for damages, and if so, why she is not a plaintiff.

g. The plaintiff claims the defendants spread false stories to have him harassed by the police. He pleads no material facts about what the stories were, how they led to him being harassed by the police, or what the basis for his claim is related to these allegations.

h. The plaintiff alleges he has suffered a decline in patient referrals, but he is not a dentist.

i. The plaintiff relies on the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, but the Crown is not a defendant in these proceedings.

[5] In these circumstances, the plaintiff should therefore be called upon to make submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed at this time.

[6] I make the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.02(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under subrule 2.1.01(1) dismissing the action;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under r. 2.1.01(3) or further order of the court, the plaintiff’s action against all of the defendants is stayed pursuant to s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43;

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this application excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with r. 2.1.01(3), that is, written submissions from the applicant of no more than 10 pages in length delivered within 15 days of receiving the notice under Form 2.1A. Submissions shall be double spaced, with top, bottom, left and right margins of at least one inch, and in font of at least 12 point;

d. In addition to the service by mail required by rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar shall serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants if it has their email addresses.

J.T. Akbarali J.

Date: November 6, 2023