Court File and Parties

BRACEBRIDGE COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-108 DATE: 20240903 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Rory A. Van Sluytman, Applicant AND: His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, Respondent

BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice R.E. Charney

COUNSEL: Rory A. Van Sluytman, Self-Represented Priscila Atkinson, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: In-Writing

Endorsement

[1] On June 26, 2024, the Applicant, Rory A. Van Sluytman, served an application under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act for leave to institute a proceeding against the Crown in Right of Ontario regarding the Ontario government’s “decision of how to handle issues of the Ontario Science Centre”.

[2] On June 21, 2017, the Applicant was declared to be a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Act by Wood J.: Ontario v. Rory Adrian Van Sluytman, 2017 ONSC 3797.

[3] The Order prohibits Mr. Van Sluytman from instituting or continuing any action in court except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court, pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

[4] Sections 140(3) and (4) of the Courts of Justice Act, provide:

Application for leave to proceed

(3) Where a person against whom an order under subsection (1) has been made seeks leave to institute or continue a proceeding, the person shall do so by way of an application in the Superior Court of Justice.

Leave to proceed

(4) Where an application for leave is made under subsection (3),

(a) leave shall be granted only if the court is satisfied that the proceeding sought to be instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding;

(b) the person making the application for leave may seek the rescission of the order made under subsection (1) but may not seek any other relief on the application;

(c) the court may rescind the order made under subsection (1);

(d) the Attorney General is entitled to be heard on the application; and

(e) no appeal lies from a refusal to grant relief to the applicant.

[5] The purpose of s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act was described by Nordheimer J., as he then was, in Chavali v. Law Society of Upper Canada, at para. 17:

[I]t is recognized that the ability of the court to grant relief respecting a person whose is found to be a vexatious litigant must not include an absolute bar in all circumstances preventing that person from having resort to the courts. Therefore, any such order against a person must contain a provision that the person may institute or continue a proceeding if leave to do so is obtained from a judge. This condition is set out in section 140(1). The inclusion of such a provision recognizes that, notwithstanding that a person has conducted litigation in a vexatious manner in the past, he or she must still have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have a legitimate need to have recourse to the courts. However, unlike the regular process where a person may commence a proceeding as of right, in the case of a vexatious litigant, the court adopts a supervisory role to ensure that such persons may only resort to the courts where the court is satisfied that the person has a genuine reason or need to do so.

[6] The Court may only grant leave to Mr. Van Sluytman to continue the proceedings if he proves both that the proceeding to be continued is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding: Ibrahim v. Ontario, 2022 ONSC 6339, at para. 7, and cases cited therein. The onus is on the applicant for both elements of the test: Falardeau v. Owen Sound Police Service Board, 2021 ONSC 6180, at para. 70.

[7] Mr. Van Sluytman’s Application sets out the basis of his proposed claim. I will quote from the first two paragraphs of his 6 page application, which provide the basis for his proposed application:

The government has a bad habit of maintaining its properties, as described in the evidences provided in this application’s record, and that the decision to dispose or build without appropriate notice or approval of the public is unconstitutional. It is in my opinion that the issues regarding the Ontario Science Center has not been handled with transparency or within the jurisdiction of government when using its incompetence as reason to its poor maintenance to that building, an issue that extends in the lower tiers of government as shown in the above mentioned material contained in my record for support to my positions.

I believe that for the government to build a new building for whatever use is only appropriate as a voting campaign gimmick and not an issue that the government should use to interject themselves into the public’s right to not be bothered with issues that is more appropriate to bring forward to be elected as an official; since it appears that the reasons for its decision seem to be everchanging and not thought out well. There is no immediate need to have both, yet, the government has changed its past decision to where the Ontario Science Center is located as appropriate is no longer valid. There hasn’t been much transparency regarding the issues to how that facility should be shut down permanently or to have produced reasonable reasons to its wanting to upgrade its playground area for adults/visitors in the downtown area. There is a reason why the city of Toronto is divided by suburbs. The obvious issue of the government having already committed to the Science Centre and not providing any reasons or evidences to that facility exceeding the costs to remain open prove that the government is abusing its authority when making a decision not to the approval. As well, there is the fact that since the ON government has already made the decision to shut that facility down, they should have already had appropriate contingencies regarding the obvious issues of people to that area purchasing properties or setting up shop nearby; of the decrease to property values that this facility may affect and whatever issues services nearby may have If the government is able to shut down a facility they should also have prepared proposals to the use of that land made available to the public at the time of their proposal or decision to sell, dispose or discard public assets. If the government can abuse its authority and do as it pleases without the approval of the public then what is stopping them from using the land inappropriately to follow their behaviors. In my opinion the government is abusing its authority when not using these types of matters as campaign for election issues. The ON government's decision regarding the Ontario Science Centre refutes the definition of a democratic society.

[8] The Applicant’s proposed relief (at para. 4) is to:

Ask of the Court to make a decision for the respondent to legislate rules how the government handles its business, specific to how the Ontario Science Centre is being handled.

[9] What is immediately apparent from these paragraphs, which are illustrative of the nature of the Applicant’s proposed application, is that, while the Applicant does not agree with the government’s proposal for the Ontario Science Centre, his application discloses no legal basis for his proposed challenge. The Application refers to no legislation or any legal principle that would permit a court to consider the public policy issues raised. Nor is there any explanation as to why the Applicant has standing to raise these issues in court. There are, therefore, no reasonable grounds for the proposed proceeding.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant’s application for leave to institute an application against His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario is dismissed.

Justice R.E. Charney Date: September 3, 2024