Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-21-00667587-0000 Date: 2024-04-22 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: Bradley Court Limited, Plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim) -and- Christopher Tinkasimire, Defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim)

Before: Robert Centa J.

Counsel: Brock Turville, for the plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim) Christopher Tinkasimire, self represented

Heard: April 22, 2024

Endorsement

[1] The registrar’s office referred this matter to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request from lawyers for the plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim), Bradley Court Limited, under rule 2.1.01(6). The main action was dismissed on consent and Bradley Court Limited asked the court to consider Mr. Tinkasimire’s counterclaim.

[2] On April 10, 2024, I directed the registrar to give notice to Mr. Tinkasimire that the court was considering making an order dismissing the counterclaim under rule 2.1.01: Bradley Court Limited v. Tinkasimire, 2024 ONSC 2092. The registrar provided that notice and invited Mr. Tinkasimire to make written submissions explaining why the counterclaim should not be dismissed. I have now reviewed the submissions and conclude that the counterclaim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. I dismiss the counterclaim, without costs.

Rule 2.1

[3] Rule 2.1.01 permits the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. In Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100, Myers J. explained:

Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the “culture shift” mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The new rule tailors appropriate procedural fairness for the category of cases involved and is an example of early resolution of civil cases that is very much in line with the goals set out in Hryniak.

[4] The Court of Appeal approved of this approach in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[5] A frivolous or vexatious motion lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. Frivolous and vexatious proceedings are often identified by, among other features, their use of rambling language which makes discerning a legitimate cause of action very difficult: Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692, at para. 11.

[6] The court is not to use rule 2.1.01 for close calls. However, neither the opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to proceedings or motions that are clearly frivolous and vexatious. Allowing such proceedings to occupy space on the court docket takes time away from other, more meritorious cases. There is simply no benefit to allowing clearly frivolous and vexatious proceedings to continue: Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2023 ONSC 73, at para. 26; Foley v. Victoria Hospital London Health Services Centre, 2023 ONSC 4978, at para. 5.

[7] I find that Mr. Tinkasimire’s counterclaim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process for four reasons.

[8] First, the pleading does not set out a legally cognizable claim against Bradley Court. Mr. Tinkasimire does not plead any material facts that could support a claim for any damages, much less the $1.5 million in damages and punitive damages that he seeks. I find that the action lacks a legal basis or legal merit and has been brought without reasonable grounds. The counterclaim is frivolous, in that it has no chance of success.

[9] Second, the counterclaim is rambling and difficult to understand: Van Sluytman, at para. 11. It contains very odd statements about members of the Toronto Fire Department that appear to have little if anything to do with the counterclaim against Bradley Court.

[10] Third, the counterclaim contains a series of rhetorical questions, which are a hallmark of a pleading that may be dismissed under Rule 2.1: Mohammad v. Bakr, 2024 ONSC 290, at para 12.

[11] Fourth, I have now received and reviewed Mr. Tinkasimire’s submissions regarding why the court should not dismiss his counterclaim. Far from persuading me that the counterclaim is not frivolous and vexatious, these submissions make it clear that the court should not permit this counterclaim to continue. Mr. Tinkasimire makes four submissions regarding why his counterclaim should not be dismissed:

The Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Christopher Tinkasimire will Base his Submissions against the Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim on Four Legal Arguments Below:

A) The Rule #2.1 - Was Not Intended to Override Ontario Laws. B) Charter of Rights, Sections 15(1) and 32(1) - Intended to Benefit all Without Implied Bias. C) Doctrine of Res Judicata - Intended for Respect Among Courts and Tribunals. D) Misapprehension of Evidence- Bradley Court Limited is Fooling the Justice System Exhibit #03.

[12] Mr. Tinkasimire elaborates on these submissions over 10 pages. I do not find any of these submissions to be persuasive. First, Rule 2.1 is not “overriding” any law of Ontario, including the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. In this case, Rule 2.1 is being applied to Mr. Tinkasimire’s counterclaim, which is a civil action he advanced in the Superior Court of Justice. It has nothing to do with any decision made by the Landlord Tenant Board. Second, section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no application to this case. Mr. Tinkasimire’s counterclaim does not seek any Charter relief. Scrutinizing this counterclaim under Rule 2.1 does not implicate s. 15 of the Charter. Third, the doctrine of res judicata cannot apply to prevent the court from dismissing a counterclaim under rule 2.1. In any event, Mr. Tinkasimire has not persuaded me that the doctrine of res judicata has any relevance to my decision regarding his counterclaim. Fourth, Mr. Tinkasimire’s allegations against Bradley Court do not persuade me that the counterclaim is not frivolous and vexatious.

[13] Finally, Mr. Tinkasimire’s submissions demonstrate his vexatiousness in another way. In his submission he seeks leave to amend the counterclaim to increase his damages claim from $1 million to $2 million and his punitive damages claim from $500,000 to $1 million. Mr. Tinkasimire offers no basis or rationale for such a mammoth increase in his damages claim. I infer from this request that he simply seeks to harass Bradley Court with an even larger claim.

[14] I find that Mr. Tinkasimire’s counterclaim is frivolous and vexatious. I dismiss his counterclaim under rule 2.1.01. In the circumstances, I dismiss his counterclaim without costs.

Robert Centa J. Date: April 22, 2024