Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00724729-0000 DATE: 20240819 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

RE: MARK GLEDHILL, Applicant

AND:

CITY OF TORONTO, DUNDEE REALTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION & MICHAEL COLE, CANDEREL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC., TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, GWI, REALTY ADVISORS, BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES LTD., TORONTO REGION SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEALS & EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES OFFICE, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL INTAKE OFFICE, Respondents

HEARD: In Writing

COUNSEL: Mark Gledhill, self-represented and acting in person Matthew Cornett, Lawyers for the Respondent City of Toronto Chris Corbett, Appeal’s Clerk (SCA Assignment Court), Criminal Intake Office ACA Wendy Jill Sabean, Toronto Regional DNA Co-Ordinator & Team Leader, Toronto Region Summary Conviction Appeals (SCA) and Extraordinary Remedies Office Chris Dunn, Lawyers for Respondents, Dundee Realty Management Corporation & Michael Cole Rebecca Moore, Lawyers for the Respondent, Canderel Commercial Services Legal Department, Lawyers for Toronto Transit Commission Gerry J. Gill, Lawyers for the Respondent GWL Realty Advisors Jonathan Levy, Lawyers for the Respondent, Brookfield Properties Ltd. David J. Olevson, Lawyers for the Respondents Morguard Investments Ltd. (“Holt-Renfrew Centre”), Rule 5 Parties to Add/Amend Lindsay Lorimer, Lawyers for the Respondent, GardaWorld Protective Services & Brent Alan Dewell, William Rodger, Wagner Morilla, Alexander Evanchick (“Security Guard Occuper at 777 Bay”), Rule 5 Parties to Add/Amend

Endorsement

G. DOW, J.

[1] Counsel for the City of Toronto, the first named respondent to the applicant, Mark Gledhill’s 16 pages Notice of Application seeks dismissal of this application under Rule 2.1.03.

[2] Mark Gledhill was declared a vexatious litigant by Justice Dunphy by Order dated September 17, 2015. As stated in subsequent decisions of this Court, that is, Gledhill v. Toronto (City) Police Services Board, 2019 ONSC 442 and Gledhill v. (Toronto City) 2021 ONSC 8462, the Order of Justice Dunphy provided a procedure for Mark Gledhill to seek leave to proceed with any action in the Superior Court of Justice from the Regional Senior Justice, in writing. That procedure does not appear to have been followed.

[3] I do not propose to repeat the more detailed reasons of (then) Justice D. Wilson contained in her 2019 endorsement cited above dismissing the granting of leave or that contained in the 2021 endorsement of Justice Myers, also referred to above. Both reached the conclusion that the proceeding ought to be dismissed. I agree with the reasoning contained in those previous decisions. As a result, this Application is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

[4] As stated by Justice Myers in 2021, the Registrar is directed to mail and email the final order to Mark Gledhill at the addresses he provided on the Notice of Application as soon as it is issued and entered. There is no requirement for approval as to the form and content of the order dismissing this Application by Mark Gledhill.

[5] Costs, if demanded, are payable by Mark Gledhill on a substantial indemnity basis to each of the respondents, forthwith after assessment.

Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: August 19, 2024