Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-695902 MOTION HEARD: 20240808 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Kakouli Lee Poka and Demitry Papasotiriou-Lanteigne, Plaintiff AND: Darin Perrett, Maurice Anderson, Royal LePage Signature Realty, Peter Gouda and Unknown Person, Defendants

BEFORE: Associate Justice Jolley

COUNSEL: Evan Farrugia, counsel for the moving party defendants Darin Perrett, Maurice Anderson and Royal LePage Signature Realty No one appearing for the self-represented plaintiffs

HEARD: 8 August 2024

Reasons for Decision

[1] The self-represented plaintiffs served a lengthy statement of claim on the defendants Perrett, Anderson and Royal Lepage (“these defendants”) on 8 March 2023. As against these defendants, the claim alleges civil conspiracy, conspiracy to injure, obstruction of justice, unlawful conduct causing damage, trespass, intentional interference with property and chattel, intentional infliction of mental suffering, invasion of privacy, negligent and intentional conduct causing damages, professional negligence, economic loss, deceit, intimidation, and vicarious liability. There is no quantum of damages pleaded.

[2] These defendants sought particulars of the statement of claim and also served a request to inspect on 22 June 2023. The plaintiffs did not respond to either request.

[3] The plaintiffs were mailed a copy of the notice of motion on 28 August 2023 and mailed a copy of the zoom details on 1 August 2024. These defendants’ request for particulars and request to inspect document were also mailed on 22 June 2023. The plaintiffs did not respond to any of these documents. Unfortunately, the motion record was sent by email (which bounced back as undeliverable) and by courier. While courier service is not good service, I have confirmation that the motion record was delivered by courier to the plaintiffs on 19 July 2024 and the factum and brief of authorities delivered by courier on 31 July 2024. The plaintiffs never responded to the letters, including the letter asking for a working email address, to the notice of motion or the couriered motion record. In the circumstances, I find that the plaintiffs have received sufficient notice of this motion record and have allowed the motion to proceed.

[4] Given the length of the claim, I do not propose to go through it paragraph by paragraph and determine what can be saved. It is replete with pleadings of evidence and allegations that would meet the test of being scandalous, vexatious or an abuse of process. Further, although the plaintiffs claim “civil conspiracy by the defendants against the plaintiffs and conspiracy to injury”, there are no particulars of the allegations. Paragraph 81 simply pleads that all defendants colluded and conspired to bully, to intimidate and to use each other as battering rams against the Plaintiffs while purporting on the surface to be good and reasonable.” Nowhere are pleaded (a) an agreement by the defendants to conspire; (b) overt action by each of the defendants that is unlawful and in furtherance of the conspiracy; (c) action directed toward the plaintiffs; (d) knowledge that, in the circumstances, injury to the plaintiffs would likely result; and (e) actual injury to the plaintiffs resulting from each of the defendant’s conduct.

[5] The statement of claim is hereby struck. If the plaintiffs wish to amend, they must do so by serving an amended statement of claim within 60 days of service of this order upon them, failing which the action shall be considered definitively struck. These defendants seek costs of $3,426.96 on a partial indemnity basis, which I find a fair and reasonable sum for the plaintiffs to pay in the circumstances. That sum shall be paid within 60 days and shall be a condition of allowing the amendment.

Associate Justice Jolley Date: 8 August 2024