Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-24-718894 Date: 2024-05-16 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: HUA SUI, Plaintiff -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, Respondent

Before: FL Myers J

Read: May 16, 2024

Endorsement

[1] Mr. Sui sues the Attorney General because a court staff member cancelled an appearance that he had scheduled at Civil Practice Court in another case. The staff member cancelled the appointment because the case was dismissed by order of a judge.

[2] Mr. Sui does not recognize the validity of the order dismissing the other case because the judge was nor chambered in Toronto; Mr. Sui could not find a sealed copy of a formal court order in the court file; and because the judge’s endorsement omitted the four superfluous zeros that the court’s computer database adds to the end of court file numbers in civil cases.

[3] Mr. Sui attended CPC before me in this new action on April 27, 2024. He asked me to schedule a hearing of an application for judicial review of the refusal of the court staff to schedule the CPC hearing in the prior action.

[4] I tried explaining to Mr. Sui that the old action has been dismissed. If he disagrees with the dismissal order, his remedy is to appeal to the Court of Appeal. There is no basis for an action to seek an order for judicial review in this court and I am dubious that one could lie in any court.

[5] Mr. Sui also explained to me that he wants to bring a motion in the old action because he does not recognize the dismissal order. He believes that if he gives any recognition at all to the existence of an order with which he disagrees, he is somehow then acquiescing to the impropriety of which he complains. That is not a correct understanding, however.

[6] Mr. Sui is bound by orders of the court even if he thinks they are invalid. He can challenge them on appeal if he chooses to do so. Acknowledging the existence of a court order does not preclude Mr. Sui from challenging it. But ignoring an order exposes Mr. Sui to the risk of liability for contempt of court.

[7] Mr. Sui should not ignore orders just because he disagrees with them. Orders of judges of the court remain valid and enforceable even if he believes the orders were made wrongly or even without jurisdiction.

[8] In my CPC endorsement of April 27, 2024, I stayed this action and directed the Registrar to give Mr. Sui notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that the court was considering dismissing this action for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face. I also adopted an order already made in the Divisional Court that prevents Mr. Sui from bringing further proceedings in this court without leave of a judge of the court.

[9] I understand that Mr. Sui does not accept the validity of my order either and he has tried to file further proceedings without leave. He attends at staff offices and makes a scene. On being denied scheduling appointments, he has shown up in courtrooms unannounced and ex parte demanding to be heard. This has happened before and since my order.

[10] Mr. Sui has now been barred from the court facilities at 361 University and 393 University.

[11] Consistent with not recognizing the validity of my CPC order that invoked the procedures in Rule 2.1, Mr. Sui has not delivered any written submissions within the time allowed under the rule.

[12] This proceeding is frivolous. Mr. Sui seeks judicial review of a statutory power of decision exercised by staff in the Registrar’s office. If scheduling is an exercise of a statutory power of decision, then judicial review lies only in the Divisional Court. But Mr. Sui knows that he cannot go there without obtaining leave to do so as set out in S ui v. Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5604, para. 11.

[13] If the cancellation of the CPC appointment does not amount to the exercise of a statutory power of decision, then Mr. Sui’s remedy against the dismissal order in his prior action is to appeal to the Court of Appeal. There is no basis to bring this proceeding against the Attorney General to challenge a staff member cancelling a CPC appearance in an action that has been dismissed.

[14] This is a case for Rule 2.1. Mr. Sui is a serial vexatious litigant. His misuse of the court and abuse of staff needs to be quelled. Requiring anyone to incur cost or time to respond to this proceeding would be an injustice to the party and a waste of all-too-scarce judicial resources.

[15] This action is dismissed with costs payable to the Attorney General payable forthwith after the assessment thereof.

FL Myers J Date: May 16, 2024