Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00093139-0000 DATE: 20240926

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN MASSEY, J.M. and C.M. Plaintiffs – and – THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA, KARINE VEILLEUX, KARINE VEILLEUX JACKSON, TRACEY ENGELKING, JUDITH HUPE, GENEVIEVE MARCIL, HÉLÈNE GUINDON, ANICK LANGLAIS, ERIC SCHONBACHER, ITHAR ABUSHEIKHA, ANDRE PITRE, DANIKA LAMARCHE, JULIE MASSE, ANIK VIAU, THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, MALINA FEELEY, JENNIFER GALLAGHER, KATHERINE KAVASSALIS, ANGÉLA VIGNEAULT, ADDELMAN BAUM GILBERT LLP, JASON GILBERT, DR. ABRAHAM WORENKLEIN, SANDRA M. LEVESQUE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSIONAL CORP., SANDRA M. LEVESQUE, BARNES SAMMON LLP, DAVID HUGHES, AUBRY CAMPBELL MACLEAN, GORDON SCOTT CAMPBELL, SICOTTE GUILBAULT LLP, YANIK GUILBAULT and MARIE HÉLÈNE GODBOUT Defendants

Counsel:

Stephen, J.M., and C.M., Self-Represented Plaintiffs Susan M. Sack, for Sicotte Guilbault LLP, Yanik Guilbault and Marie Helénè Godbout Carole Jenkins, for The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Kristen Kephalas for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, Jennifer Gallagher, Katherine Kavassalis and Tracey Engelking Stephen Cavanagh for Malina Feeley Howard Yegendorf and Eric Dwyer for Angéla Vigneault Adam C. Pantel for Addelman Baum Gilbert LLP, Jason Gilbert Colin R. Dubeau and Rebecca Akong, for Barnes Sammon LLP Erin H. Durant and Sydney McIvor, for Aubry Campbell MacLean, Gordon Scott Campbell Kathryn A. McKague, for Dr. Abraham Worenklein

HEARD: September 25, 2024

Papageorgiou J.

Overview

[1] Mr. Stephen Massey has brought a claim against 31 defendants related to a family law proceeding that concluded with a dismissal of his appeal on the merits.

[2] Mr. Massey and Ms. Vigneault divorced in 2012 and had a joint custody arrangement.

[3] In 2013, CAS became involved and commenced a Protection Application because of parental conflict and suspected parental alienation. The parents consented to an assessment wherein Dr. Worenklein concluded that Mr. Massey had embarked on a campaign of alienation against Ms. Vigneault. In 2014, Labrosse J. heard the custody proceedings by way of motion to change and the Protection Application together. Based on a finding of parental alienation, in 2015 Labrosse J. granted Ms. Vigneault sole custody and allowed Mr. Massey supervised access. CAS was also permitted to withdraw the Protection Application.

[4] Mr. Massey appealed the judgment of Labrosse J. and the appeal was dismissed in 2016 by the Ontario Court of Appeal: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. A.V., 2016 ONCA 361.

[5] It is uncontradicted that five years after the family law proceedings were concluded the children ultimately ran away from Ms. Vigneault’s residence, resumed living with Mr. Massey again, and that they are currently estranged from Ms. Vigneault. Some of the allegations in this lawsuit relate to ongoing alleged abuse perpetrated against the children by Ms. Vigneault after the family court order.

[6] The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of these two daughters as well, but as I will set out, they have never attended any case conferences, and there is no evidence that they authorized Mr. Massey to bring this proceeding on their behalf.

[7] Because of the multiple parties and defendants as well as complaints against some Ottawa court officers the matter was traversed to case conferences to be conducted by me in Toronto.

[8] These reasons are written to explain why I am dismissing this action as against Mr. Massey with prejudice, but as against his and Ms. Vigneault’s daughters, J.M. and C.M., without prejudice to their ability to bring another proceeding. It is not clear to me they ever authorized this proceeding and the limitation period for one of them has not yet expired because she has not yet reached the age of majority. The other child has just reached the age of majority. There may also be issues of discoverability. It would be unfair to dismiss the claim purportedly made on their behalf related to alleged abuse in the circumstances with prejudice.

Discussion

Description of the Claim

[9] In this Statement of Claim, Mr. Massey makes a variety of allegations against the following defendants:

• Angela Vigneault, Mr. Massey’s ex-wife.
• Children’s Aid Society (CAS) Ottawa, who brought the Child Protection Application.
• CAS lawyers Karine Jackson, Judith Hupe and Tracey Engelking.
• CAS case workers and employees Genevieve Marcil, Hélène Guindon, Anick Langlais, Eric Schonbacher, Ithar Abusheikha, Andre Pitre, Danka Lamarche, Julie Masse, and Anik Viau, who were involved in the Protection Application and Mr. Massey’s supervised visits between 2012-2014.
• The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), and counsel Malina Feeley, Jennifer Gallagher and Katherine Kavassalis.
• Sicotte Guilbault, Yanik Guilbault, and Marie Helen Godbout, who represented Angela Vigneault in several motions and at the custody hearing.
• Addelman Baum Gilbert LLP and Jason Gilbert, who were retained by Mr. Massey in early 2014 and then withdrew before the custody hearing.
• Barnes Sammon LLP and David Hughes, who were retained by Mr. Massey between April and December 2014.
• Aubry Maclean and Gordon Campbell, who represented Mr. Massey on his appeal in 2016.
• Dr. Abraham Worenklein, who performed the assessment.
• Sandra Levesque, a court-appointed social worker.

[10] Mr. Massey says that Ms. Vigneault physically and psychologically abused J.M. and C.M. while the couple was separated but living together. Mr. Massey describes numerous episodes of abuse, wherein Ms. Vigneault hit and slapped her daughters, banged their heads against doors, twisted their arms behind their backs, and dragged them across the floor. He alleges that Ms. Vigneault had C.M. diagnosed with ADHD to cover up the abuse and help “sedate” C.M.

[11] Mr. Massey says he recorded the abuse and reported it to CAS in 2010 and 2012.

[12] He says that when he reported the abuse, CAS workers ignored his complaints, covered up and manipulated his evidence, lied to him, threatened to fabricate claims against him, and wrongly closed the file multiple times. He says CAS conducted an inadequate investigation into the abuse and encouraged J.M. and C.M. not to report the abuse by their mother.

[13] CAS subsequently commenced child protection proceedings. Mr. Massey claims that CAS workers falsely accused him of parental alienation and intimidated and deceived him into agreeing to an assessment. He says Dr. Worenklein, the psychologist, carried out an improper assessment and is not a properly licensed psychologist. CAS conspired with Dr. Worenklein, the OCL, Ms. Vigneault’s lawyers, and other professionals to brainwash Mr. Massey’s daughters, falsely accuse him of parental alienation, and deny Mr. Massey any custody of them.

[14] During his supervised visits, Mr. Massey claims that CAS workers secretly recorded and spied on him and his daughters and fabricated instances of alienation in their notes. He also claims that CAS workers bullied, intimidated, and terrorized J.M. and C.M. during these and other visits.

[15] He alleges that his lawyers Addelman Baum Gilbert LLP failed to provide him with a retainer, failed to raise certain issues and file certain documents, pressured him into consenting to an assessment, and conspired with CAS to “ambush” him at the custody hearing. He says he was forced to sign a Notice of Change of Representation just minutes before the hearing was to commence. Mr. Massey makes similar allegations against David Hughes, who he retained in April 2014 and who represented him in hearings in 2014, and against Gordon Campbell, who represented him before the Court of Appeal.

[16] He also claims that Ms. Vigneault’s lawyer, Ms. Godbout, who he calls “Mentally Deranged,” made disparaging allegations against him and his parenting abilities. He criticizes various tactics and statements made by Ms. Vigneault’s lawyers at several different proceedings.

[17] Mr. Massey also contests many of the orders and decisions made in proceedings throughout 2014 and 2015. He claims that several important documents, such as court orders and affidavits, were only given to him in French, which he cannot read. He says he was wrongly “forced out” of the courtroom and threatened during an August 2014 proceeding. He criticizes the findings and statements made by Justice Labrosse.

[18] Throughout the Statement of Claim, Mr. Massey quotes from various recordings that he made of conversations with CAS workers, OCL counsel, Dr. Worenklein, and others.

[19] Mr. Massey says that Ms. Vigneault’s physical, emotional and verbal abuse of J.M. and C.M. continued after the court proceedings, when they were living with their mother. Ms. Vigneault is accused of slapping and pushing J.M. and C.M. several times. The Claim further states that Ms. Vigneault stalked and harassed her daughters after they ran away in 2019. J.M. and C.M. were both diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and depression in 2020.

[20] I note that although the claims against each of the defendants mention Mr. Massey, C.M. and J.M. as harmed parties, overall the bulk of the allegations focus on alleged harm suffered by Mr. Massey.

[21] There are a variety of reasons why I am dismissing this action.

Failure to attend and participate in the action

[22] I held case conferences on February 8, 2024, and March 25, 2024, and none of the Plaintiffs attended. I scheduled a case conference for June 19, 2024. There was a zoom mix-up such that I was in one zoom conference room while the parties were in another. As such, the case conference did not proceed, but the parties confirm that the plaintiffs did not attend where they were, and the plaintiffs did not attend where I was.

[23] Then I scheduled a further case conference for July 8, 2024. On July 4, 2024, Mr. Massey sent an email indicating that he could not attend because his mother was ill. I adjourned the case conference but directed that the parties communicate to set up another case conference. The defendants communicated with Mr. Massey to set one up, but he did not respond and so they scheduled a case conference for September 25, 2024. He did not attend again.

[24] Mr. Massey has been advised of all of these case conferences and was advised in my endorsements that I would dismiss his case if he continued to fail to attend.

[25] Mr. Massey cannot bring a proceeding of this magnitude and then fail to show up and/or prosecute it.

Failure to abide by a court order

[26] At the first case conference I explained various issues with this proceeding as follows:

a) The only contact information on the Statement of Claim is Mr. Massey’s email address and the defendants have no way of communicating with J.M. and C.M. I directed that Mr. Massey send the February 8, 2024 endorsement to them and that they must advise the defendants by email their contact information and whether they had given consent to be parties. b) Because the plaintiffs have alleged bad faith against the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and its employees, the entire proceeding is stayed pursuant to s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. As such the plaintiffs would have to bring a motion to lift the stay. I directed that the plaintiffs serve their Notice of Motion to lift the stay by March 22, 2024.

[27] In the February 8, 2024 endorsement I advised that failure to abide by these directions could lead to an Order striking out the Statement of Claim.

[28] These orders have not been complied with as of the date of this endorsement.

Frivolous Vexatious and an Abuse of Process

[29] In an endorsement dated June 21, 2024, I gave notice that I was considering making an Order pursuant to r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing this action. I gave the plaintiffs 15 days to provide a written response.

[30] I did not receive any response.

[31] This proceeding bears all the hallmarks of a vexatious proceeding:

• The Statement of Claim is 290 pages long and contains rambling discourse.
• It is a collateral attack against the family law proceedings, and parties involved in these, which were determined against Mr. Massey with a final decision of the Court of Appeal in 2016.
• The Plaintiff’s Claim incorrectly names the OCL who is not a separate entity and cannot be sued. The claim, being for damages against an office of a ministry, lies against His Majesty the King (the “Crown”). As the Crown is a proper defendant, a Notice of Claim must be served on the Crown at least 60 days prior to commencing a proceeding under s. 18 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. When notice is not provided, the claim is rendered a nullity: s. 18(6)
• Apart from the ongoing alleged abuse of C.M. and J.M. which the Claim says continued after Ms. Vigneault obtained sole custody, the matters set out in the Claim occurred between 2010 and 2016. The Claim was commenced in 2023. Thus, this claim is beyond the 2-year limitation period set out in the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B.
• Since Mr. Massey pleads to matters that he was actively involved in, there is no issue as to discoverability. In that regard, the kinds of things set out in the Claim are the same kinds of arguments that he made all along in the family law proceeding. Even if there may be some minor pleaded matters that he may have been unaware of as at 2016, given the legal proceedings and his upset over the way they turned out, a reasonable person ought to have discovered any material facts more than two years before 2023 by exercising reasonable diligence: Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick, 2021 SCC 31, at paras. 42-46.

[32] His communications with the Court are consistent with this being a vexatious proceeding.

• On February 6, 2024 he sent an email to the defendants as well as various public officials including a member of the government and judges, with the subject line “Ottawa Judge—MADE A DEAL—With CAS, OCL and Lawyers—To Cover up Child Abuse, Recorded Evidence and Police Reports to Give Ottawa Teacher Sole Custody.” The email is lengthy and contains rambling discourse.
• On June 16, 2024, he sent a similar email to even more members of the government and more judges, repeating the same subject line and rambling discourse.
• The above two emails are approximately 35 pages long

[33] Therefore, I am lifting the stay and dismissing Mr. Massey’s action as against all defendants with prejudice.

[34] I am also dismissing the Claim brought by C.M. and J.M. but without prejudice. As noted, part of the issues in this claim relate to alleged abuse by Ms. Vigneault while in her care after the family law proceedings were concluded.

[35] Given this, their age and arguments that they could raise on discoverability with respect to the abuse alleged, as well as the fact that I am not even satisfied that they are aware of this proceeding, it would be unfair to dismiss a claim brought in their name with prejudice.

[36] However, I wish to make it clear that this is not an invitation for Mr. Massey to bring another claim on behalf of C.M. or J.M. If they determine that they will do so, they shall provide their contact information as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[37] In that regard, as part of this Order, I am directing that Mr. Massey may not bring any proceeding against these defendants without leave of the court.

[38] If any additional proceeding is brought in respect of these matters by C.M. or J.M., I am seized of it.

[39] I award costs of the proceeding to the parties from Mr. Massey as follows as per the parties request:

• Sicotte Guilbault LLP, Yanik Guilbault and Marie Helene Godbout: $7,500
• Ottawa Children’s Aid Society: $5,000
• Jason Gilbert: $5,000
• Gordon Campbell and Aubry Campbell: $5,000
• Angela Vigneault: $5,000
• Barnes Sammon LLP and David Hughes: $5,000
• Malina Feeley: $3,500
• Aubry Campbell and Gordon Campbell: $5,000
• Dr. Abraham Worenklein: $3,500

[40] Where I have not awarded costs, it is because the parties did not request them, or they did not attend at the most recent case conference. Any other party who seeks costs may make written submissions within 7 days followed by written submissions from the plaintiff, all of which may be uploaded to Case Centre.

Papageorgiou J.

Released: September 26, 2024

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN MASSEY, J.M. and C. M. Plaintiffs – and – THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA, KARINE VEILLEUX, KARINE VEILLEUX JACKSON, TRACEY ENGELKING, JUDITH HUPE, GENEVIEVE MARCIL, HÉLÈNE GUINDON, ANICK LANGLAIS, ERIC SCHONBACHER, ITHAR ABUSHEIKHA, ANDRE PITRE, DANIKA LAMARCHE, JULIE MASSE, ANIK VIAU, THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, MALINA FEELEY, JENNIFER GALLAGHER, KATHERINE KAVASSALIS, ANGÉLA VIGNEAULT, ADDELMAN BAUM GILBERT LLP, JASON GILBERT, DR. ABRAHAM WORENKLEIN, SANDRA M. LEVESQUE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSIONAL CORP., SANDRA M. LEVESQUE, BARNES SAMMON LLP, DAVID HUGHES, AUBRY CAMPBELL MACLEAN, GORDON SCOTT CAMPBELL, SICOTTE GUILBAULT LLP, YANIK GUILBAULT and MARIE HÉLÈNE GODBOUT Defendants

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Papageorgiou J.

Released: September 26, 2024