COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00000363-0000
DATE: 2024Jun06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
NATHANIEL STROUD
Plaintiff
– and –
LAWYER ADRIAN HALPERT
Defendant/Moving Party
Self-represented
Matthew E. Taft
HEARD: March 25, 2024
Tranmer J.
MOTION DECISION
[1] The defendant moves under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and/or alternatively under Rule 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11, for an Order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim without leave to amend, dismissing the plaintiff’s action and costs on a full indemnity basis.
Rule 21.01(1)(b)
[2] The defendant must show that it is plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the plaintiff’s claims cannot succeed.
[3] No evidence is admitted on such a motion. The facts pleaded are assumed to be true. Bald conclusory statements of facts or allegations of legal conclusions unsupported by material facts are not assumed to be true.
[4] The court is entitled to consider any documents specifically referred to and relied on in the pleading.
[5] The Rules of Civil Procedure require that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the materials facts on which the party relies for the claim. (Rule 25.06(1))
[6] Mr. Stroud’s claim is that the defendant wrongfully terminated their Retainer Agreement. Mr. Stroud pleads that he retained Mr. Halpert to represent him, in regard to Highway Traffic offences. The Retainer Agreement dated August 16, 2023, states:
Further to our initial discussions on Tuesday, August 15, 2023, and Wednesday, August 16, 2023 you have requested, and I have agreed to act as your lawyer with respect your upcoming provincial offences trial.
Confidentiality
Anything you say to me, and any information you provide to me, is covered by solicitor-client confidentiality. This means I cannot discuss or share anything you tell me with anyone else unless you give me your permission to do so.
Your information will be stored on my computer, which is protected by security software including malware testing, identity verification, data confidentiality and multiple backup drives.
Retainer
Owing to the circumstances of your case, $750.00 will be paid in advance of your trial on Monday, August 28, 2023.
In the event of a dismissal, that will be the sum of my fee.
In the event I have to adjourn your trial to a later date, you have agreed to provide me with another $750.00 to conduct the trial. This will amount to a total of $1500.00.
Payment will be done via e-transfer to my account at ferdinand1494@gmail.com.
As we discussed, the fees will cover conducting your trial, and trial preparation. This includes reviewing and analysing disclosure, conducting legal research, organizing any questions I may have for you or any other potential witnesses and trial strategy. Although this may be a short trial, it is not advised to go into any trial unprepared and without a thorough understanding of the law and the facts.
You may ask for an up to date Trust Statement / invoice at any time and I will provide you with one.
Sole Representation
I will be representing solely you in this matter. My representation of you does not include the representation of related persons or entities, such as family members; friends; the individuals or entities that are shareholders, directors of officers of a corporation, its parent, subsidiaries or affiliates; partners of a partnership or joint venture; or members of a trade association or other organization. In acting for you, I am not acting for or taking on any responsibilities, obligations or duties to any such related persons or entities and no lawyer-client or other fiduciary relationship exists between myself and such related persons or entities.
Ending the Relationship
By You
You are free to end my services before your case is completed by writing me a letter or note.
By Me
I am free to withdraw my services at any time if I have good reason. For example, I would withdraw my services if a client:
Misrepresented facts or failed to disclose important facts;
Did not cooperate with me in any reasonable request;
Asked me to do something unethical or illegal;
Ceased communication with me, or;
Did not pay bills on time without making other arrangements for payment.
Other Matters
If any further legal matters arise, you understand that I have not been retained by you to act on those matters. Please inform me as soon as possible if there are any other matters for which you may require legal representation. If I am unable to act for you with regard to new matters, I may refer you to another lawyer for assistance.
If you want to proceed on the basis described above, please sign this agreement in the space provided and forward a copy to me. If there is anything you do not agree with, or if there is anything you would like to discuss before signing, please inform me promptly.
[7] The Provincial Offences are as follows:
COUNT 1
Nathaniel Shaw STROUD
on or about the 3rd day of June in the year 2020 at the City of Kingston in the East Region did commit the offence of drive a motor vehicle on Princess St without holding a valid licence issued to him, contrary to Section 32, subsection (1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
COUNT 2 AND FURTHER THAT
Nathaniel Shaw STROUD
on or about the 3rd day of June in the year 2020 at the City of Kingston in the East Region did commit the offence of drive a motor vehicle on Princess St and fail to have a currently validated permit for the vehicle, contrary to Section 7, subsection (1), clause (a) of the Highway Traffic Act.
COUNT 3 AND FURTHER THAT
Nathaniel Shaw STROUD
on or about the 3rd day of June in the year 2020 at the City of Kingston in the East Region did commit the offence of being the owner of a motor vehicle, operate the said vehicle on Princess St without the motor vehicle being insured under a contract of automobile insurance, contrary to Section 2, subsection (1), clause (a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
Alleged Breach of Contract
[8] It is clear from Mr. Halpert’s email of October 31, 2023 to Mr. Stroud which is also pleaded that he had “good reason” to withdraw his services. These reasons are clearly and plainly stated in his email. Those reasons are reasonable and consistent with the Retainer Agreement. The listed reasons for withdrawal of services as set out in the Retainer Agreement are examples, and are clearly and plainly not meant to be an exhaustive list.
[9] As of the date of the email, Mr. Stroud had 3 ½ months’ notice that he would require alternate representation for his trial in February 2024.
[10] The Ontario Court of Justice made an Order granting Mr. Halpert’s request to be removed as solicitor of record. That Court has jurisdiction to consider the request and to make such an Order, on such terms as it saw fit and just.
[11] As of the date that the Statement of Claim herein was issued, November 1, 2023, Mr. Stroud had 3 ½ months to retain alternate representation.
[12] Mr. Stroud pleads that his case involved offences under the Highway Traffic Act which are heard by Justices of the Peace and “usually a person would hire a paralegal for this type of offence.”
[13] The Court Record, also the subject of the pleading, shows a 1 hour estimate for trial time.
[14] The Retainer Agreement is clear and unambiguous on its plain reading and Mr. Halpert’s termination of it was in accordance with its terms.
[15] It is plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the claim of breach of contract.
[16] Furthermore, the plaintiff has not pleaded any loss that could possibly arise from such an alleged breach.
[17] He pleads as resulting loss:
Now (November 1, 2023), I am faced with having to defend myself alone at my trial in February against all of the judicial administrative officials that have wronged me. Adrian Halpert’s actions and omissions have compromised my defence and destroyed any chance of a fair trial. … then compromising my entire defence right before my next scheduled trial. …
[18] On the most generous reading of the pleading, those allegations as pleaded, are without basis, and it is plain, obvious and beyond doubt that such claim is doomed to fail.
[19] Furthermore, Mr. Stroud’s 11(b) rights and remedies under the Charter as advanced by him are within the jurisdiction of and can be properly dealt with in the Ontario Court of Justice.
[20] This claim must be struck.
Allegation of False Advertising
[21] The pleading misstates Mr. Halpert’s advertising.
[22] The Statement of Claim does not plead intent to injure or actual economic loss.
[23] This pleading is clearly doomed to fail and is struck.
Allegation of Breach of Solicitor Client Privilege
[24] This allegation in para. 4 of the Statement of Claim is not a “concise statement of material fact.”
[25] The how, when, with whom and other material facts are not pleaded.
[26] Mr. Stroud’s use of the word “suggests” a breach of solicitor client privilege means that such a pleading cannot be relied upon by the court for the purposes of this motion.
[27] This claim is struck.
Allegation of Punitive Damages
[28] The material facts required for a claim of punitive damages are not pleaded.
[29] The above referenced claims are not pleaded as a basis.
[30] This claim is struck.
Prayer for Relief
[31] The prayer for relief does not comply with Rule 25.06(9)(a) and it should be struck.
[32] Accordingly, the Statement of Claim should be struck out for these reasons.
Rule 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11
[33] Alternatively, I consider the defence motion under these Rules.
[34] Evidence may be considered on the motion under these Rules.
[35] The Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to and exercised it lawfully (court’s decision of February 5, 2024 has not been overturned on appeal) in ordering Mr. Halpert be removed as Counsel of Record.
[36] The plaintiff has been allowed additional time to secure representation for his traffic tickets offences trial.
[37] The claims set out in the Statement of Claim reach far beyond a retainer agreement in respect of traffic tickets.
[38] In the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff is tying this claim to the same subject matter that he has claimed in multiple proceedings against justice sector participants that he has previously commenced. It is clear that, as pleaded, he seeks to advance a further claim to challenge his perception of how he has been wronged at many levels within the administration of justice. In doing so, and in the materials that he has filed in the various proceedings, he has demonstrated the attributes of a vexatious litigant as defined in the authorities.
[39] It is plain, obvious and beyond doubt that this claim is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
[40] The Statement of Claim should also be struck under these Rules.
No Leave to Amend
[41] In the current circumstances and in accordance with the governing authorities, this is not a case where leave to amend should be granted.
Conclusion
[42] The principles articulated by Justice Patrick Smith of this court in Mosher v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario dated November 9, 2004 support my decisions in the present case.
[43] The Statement of Claim is struck.
[44] The action is dismissed.
Costs
[45] The defendant may make written submissions as to costs limited to two pages, plus a costs outline and any authorities within 5 days of receipt of this decision.
[46] The plaintiff may reply in like manner within 5 days of receipt of the defendant’s written submissions.
Tranmer J.
Released: June 6, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00000363-0000
DATE: 2024Jun06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
NATHANIEL STROUD
Plaintiff
– and –
LAWYER ADRIAN HALPERT
Defendant/Moving Party
MOTION DECISION
Tranmer J.
Released: June 6, 2024