Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-00704029-0000 Date: 2023-12-04 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

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

Before: J.T. Akbarali J.

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

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

[1] On November 6, 2023, having received a request from counsel for certain defendants to consider dismissing this action under r. 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, I released an endorsement in this matter setting out my concerns with the plaintiff’s claim and seeking submissions.

[2] I received submissions in response from the plaintiff indicating, among other things, that he intended to discontinue his action but was unable to do so because the process under r. 2.1 was ongoing and as a result, the intake office would not accept the filing. At the same time, I was advised that the defendants expressed their disagreement with a discontinuance. In the circumstances, I sought responding submissions from the defendants.

[3] After receiving the defendants’ submissions, the plaintiff sent further submissions by way of email, though not requested nor permitted to do so.

[4] The crux of the plaintiff’s submissions is that he is a self-represented party and made a mistake by filing the wrong version of the claim. He insists he has a valid claim.

[5] For their part, the defendants explain that they do not consent to the plaintiff discontinuing his action because he intends to simply file a new one. They ask that I direct that the plaintiff obtain leave for any further proceedings against the defendants, relying on M.E. v. Ontario, 2022 ONCA 714, at para. 17; and Hill v. Cambridge (City), 2023 ONCA 164, at paras. 3 and 10.

[6] In my original endorsement, I raised the following issues with the plaintiff’s claims:

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.

[7] The plaintiff states that he holds an LLM, so he can be expected to be able to respond to the jurisdictional and other concerns I raised in my initial endorsement. The plaintiff has made absolutely no effort to explain why these concerns do not arise on his current, or his intended, pleading.

[8] In these circumstances, I dismiss the plaintiff’s action under r. 2.1.01(6). The plaintiff shall not be entitled to commence another action against these defendants without first obtaining leave of the court to do so, and in seeking such leave, the plaintiff shall deliver to the court a draft statement of claim for review in connection with the request for leave.

[9] The defendants may take out an order in respect of this endorsement without the approval as to form and content of the plaintiff.

J.T. Akbarali J. Date: December 4, 2023