COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00707285-0000 DATE: 20240628
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Juan Troncoso Cheima et al., Plaintiffs -and- His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Defendants
BEFORE: Robert Centa J.
COUNSEL: No one appearing for the plaintiffs Cindy Ko and Nick Continelli, for the defendants
HEARD: June 28, 2024
Endorsement
[1] This action first came before me in Civil Practice Court on May 29, 2024. The defendants wished to schedule a motion to set aside a noting in default. After hearing briefly about the nature of the case, I adjourned the matter to a case conference before me on June 10, 2024.
[2] The plaintiff Juan Troncoso Cheima did not attend at the case conference. Pursuant to rule 3.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194, I waited 15 minutes for Mr. Cheima to arrive, but he never joined by Zoom. I then proceeded in his absence. At the case conference, I set aside the noting in default of the defendants: Cheima v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 3320.
[3] I then directed the registrar to provide notice to Mr. Cheima that I had reviewed the statement of claim and was considering dismissing the action as frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the court’s process. On June 10, 2024, the registrar notified Mr. Chan of my concerns and invited him to provide any submissions within 15 days. Mr. Cheima did not provide any submissions.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I dismiss this action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
Rule 2.1
[5] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 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.
[6] The Court of Appeal approved of this approach in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.
[7] 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.
[8] The court is not to use rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 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.
The action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process
[9] In the action, Mr. Cheima claims $60 million in damages for:
Damages for negligence, negligent investigation, injurious falsehood, defamation, false imprisonment, assault, battery and imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital, refoulement and complicity to torture, conspiracy, abuse of public office, and breaches of sections 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15 and 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ….
[10] Mr. Cheima also seeks an additional $50 million in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and punitive, exemplary, and/or aggravated damages in the amount of $50 million. On behalf of the plaintiffs Marilyn Troncoso, Joshua Troncoso, and Sonia Maria Morales, there is a claim for $20 million for abuse of public office, and an $10 million for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
[11] In the pleading, Mr. Cheima and Ms. Tronsco plead that they are acting as “a litigation guardian” for their family members. I note that rule 15.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 requires that a party to a proceeding who is under disability shall be represented by a lawyer. An individual may act for him or herself in an action but may not act for another person: Direck v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2010 ONSC 4396.
[12] I find the action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court for six reasons.
[13] First, it is difficult to discern a plausible cause of action in the statement of claim. The statement of action alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy, but the allegations contain no particulars and are very poorly explained. It is very difficult to see the factual basis for any of the claims asserted.
[14] Second, many of the events described took place between 1983 and 1986. There is no plausible basis that those events could form part of an action commenced on October 6, 2023.
[15] Third, the claim alleges a conspiracy involving lawyers he retained or attempted to retain, the Ontario Legal Aid Plan, and the Law society of Ontario. One typical feature of a vexatious proceeding is including claims against former counsel and the law society. For example, Mr. Cheima pleads that:
- The "directing minds" of the Law Society of Upper Canada and certain local and benchers of said society have a vested interest in adherence and obedience to U.S. Government, as the Society has many U.S. Business interests, as private legal practices are licensed by the said Society, also said Society is the sole authority over the Ontario Legal Aid Plan, as well as being totally oppose to the plaintiff, Juan Troncoso Cheima performance in Immigration issues. A government document entitled Transnational Corporations, Volume 2, published by United Nations, gives a general descriptions of the role performed by the referred to "directing minds".
[16] Fourth, the claim makes serious allegations against non-parties to this proceeding but does not plead material facts capable of making out those allegations. That is vexatious.
[17] Fifth, the claim relies on odd and irrelevant allegations. For example, Mr. Cheima alleges that:
The CIT failed neglected and inform to U.S. Government an Act to restore to Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all foreign Powers repugnant to the same: A.D. 1558. ANNO PRIMO REGINAE ELIZABETHAE. [formatting as in the statement of claim].
[18] Sixth, Mr. Cheima has taken a series of unusual and irregular procedural steps that suggest he is conducting this proceeding in a vexatious manner. For example, he pleads as follows:
On October 28, 1992, Plaintiff, Juan Troncoso, filed a Motion Record for a Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court of Ontario requesting permission to proceed by private prosecutors before a Gran [sic] Jury in the Matter of Administration of Justice.
On January 27, 2022, the plaintiff, Juan Troncoso Cheima, filed a Motion Record for a Writ of Mandamus before the Ontario Court of Justice for order to assign a senior supernumerary judge of the Court of Appeal to the Court to preside over the public Institutions Inspections Panel in the judicial district of Toronto for the purpose of hearing and determining motions of the plaintiffs parties to designate and expand the number of sitting jurors of such panel, so as to constitute a Grand Jury.
[19] While Mr. Cheima could have persuaded me that this action should be allowed to continue, he did not file any written representations, despite being invited to do so. In the absence of such submissions, I find that the action is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process. The action is dismissed without costs.
Robert Centa J. Date: June 28, 2024