Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: C-9044/05, C-9117/05, C-9118/05, C-9140/05, C-9212/05

DATE: 2023/02/15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Pradeep Kumar Verma, Plaintiff

AND: Her Majesty the Queen et al., Defendants

BEFORE: M.G. Ellies R.S.J.

COUNSEL: No one appearing

HEARD: In chambers

Endorsement

[1] In an endorsement dated January 3, 2023, I ordered that the plaintiff be given notice under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, of the court’s intention to stay or dismiss the proceedings in files C-9044/05, C-9117/05, C-9118/05, and C-9140/05 as being frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Pursuant to my endorsement, a notice in Form 2.1A was served by regular mail and by email sent to all the addresses on file with the court, together with a copy of my endorsement. Although an email sent to the plaintiff “bounced” as undelivered, none of the notices sent by regular mail were returned.

[2] In both the notice and my endorsement, the plaintiff was advised that the proceedings might be stayed or dismissed unless he filed a written submission within 15 days after receiving the notice. More than 15 days have passed, and no written submission has been received.

[3] In addition to the proceedings referred to above, it has come to my attention that there is a fifth related proceeding, file C-9212/05. This proceeding was commenced by the plaintiff on November 29, 2005, just days after the other four proceedings were stayed by Valin J. on November 25, 2005, because the plaintiff was not represented by a litigation guardian, as required by the rules. The plaintiff is not represented by a litigation guardian in that proceeding, either.

[4] As I stated in my last endorsement, one does not have to read beyond the title of proceedings in file C-9044/05 to conclude that those proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The statement of claim lists dozens, if not hundreds, of defendants including government agencies at all levels, politicians, judicial officers (including the former Chief Justice of this court), medical facilities and personnel, banks, insurance companies, lawyers (both in private practice and in government), police departments, and others.

[5] The substantive part of the claim consists of a comprehensive catalogue of causes of action, supported by an incomprehensible collection of allegedly material facts. I doubt anyone could sum up the basis for the claims in a paragraph or two. To make matters worse, notwithstanding the prolixity of the claim, there are no allegations whatsoever against some of the named defendants contained anywhere within it.

[6] The pleadings read much more like an act of retribution than a request for restitution.

[7] The statements of claim in files C-9117/5 and C-9140/05 are less prolix and involve only two defendants, namely the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario. However, they are just as abusive of the court’s process. In a single paragraph, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable for “abuse of process, habitually perpetrated fraud…misfeasance in public office, collusion…gross negligence and recklessness”, among other things. These allegations are repetitive of the allegations in file C-9044/05. Indeed, in both of the later actions, the plaintiff asks for an order consolidating them with the earlier action.

[8] The related files have sat dormant for so long that two of them cannot be located. Instead, I have been required to resort to a letter dated December 5, 2005, sent to the Regional Senior Justice at the time by counsel at the Ministry of the Attorney General, Crown Law Office Civil. In the letter, counsel outlines the four proceedings stayed by Valin J. and describes the proceeding started by the plaintiff just after that order was made. In the letter, counsel describes the fifth proceeding as involving some of the same defendants and making the same allegations as were made in the earlier actions.

[9] In addition to the content of the proceedings that I have described, the number, timing, and duplicitous nature of them are all indicative of an abuse of the court’s process.

[10] Beyond the nature of the proceedings themselves, I have also considered the matter of delay. These actions could have been, and in my view should have been, dismissed long ago under r. 48.14(1). That rule provides that the registrar must dismiss an action for delay where it has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means within five years of the date of commencement.

[11] For these reasons, the proceedings contained in court files C-9044/05, C-9117/05, C-9118/05, C-9140/05, and C-9212/05 shall be and the same are hereby dismissed.

M.G. Ellies R.S.J.

Date: February 15, 2023