2024 ONSC 5608

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-002628-0000 DATE: 2024-08-10

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton ON L6W 4T6

RE: DILLON PARRIS, Applicant AND: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON, MAYOR PATRICK BROWN, Respondents

BEFORE: Justice Fowler Byrne

COUNSEL: For Plaintiff: Self-Represented Email: dillonparris170@gmail.com For Defendants: Ian H. Gold and Sean Murtha Email: igold@tgplayers.com ; smurtha@tgplawyers.com

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

[1] On June 11, 2024, the Applicant commenced this Application wherein he sought, inter alia, that title to his former home be reverted back to him and that he be awarded $80,000,000 in damages for the breach of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, he seeks a finding of fraud based on the Respondents’ failure to revert the title to him in a timely manner and alleges the Respondents are profiting from this fraud.

[2] On or about July 5, 2024, the Respondents requested that the Application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As is his right, the Applicant provided a response to this request, by way of an email dated July 29, 2024 and by submitting written submissions on that same day. The Respondents did not respond to these submissions.

Background

[3] This Application involves the Applicant’s former residence located at 166 Fleetwood Cres. in Brampton (“the Property”). The Applicant and his wife gave a mortgage to the National Bank. It went into default. A default judgment was granted on October 13, 2015 and a writ of possession was issued on November 4, 2015. The Applicant was evicted and the Property sold in 2015. Subsequently, the Applicant moved to have the writ of possession set aside, which motion was denied on February 8, 2016. He has attended at the property since title was transferred, causing the police to be called. He has been criminally charged as a result.

[4] The Applicant continues in his efforts to have title of the Property reverted back to him.

[5] In 2020, he commenced an action against the provincial government, and various individuals. That action was dismissed pursuant to r.2.1 on October 26, 2020 (see 2020 ONSC 6520).

[6] In 2021, the Applicant started another action against the provincial government and the Director of Titles for the Province. Again, he sought the recovery of his residential property. As with the previous action, the reviewing judge found no direct link between the Applicant and the conduct of the Defendants of that action. This action was dismissed pursuant to r.2.1 as an abuse of process, on October 22, 2021 (see 2021 ONSC 6434).

[7] In 2023, the Applicant commenced an application against the Ontario government, and two other government officials in Toronto. He sought title of the Property and $50 million in damages for the breach of his rights under the Charter. That action was also dismissed as abusive, pursuant to r.2.1 on May 15, 2023 (see 2023 ONSC 2935). That dismissal was appealed to the Divisional Court, which appeal was dismissed on July 10, 2023, as being brought in the wrong court, but also because it was frivolous and vexatious on its face (see 2023 ONSC 4084).

[8] Again, in 2023, the Applicant commenced another application in Brampton as against the Ontario government, the Peel Police Board, and various government officials. Again, it involved the loss of the Property. That action was dismissed by me pursuant to rule 2.1. It appears that this decision was appealed to the Divisional Court, unsuccessfully. The Applicant also pleads in this Application that he tried to go before a Justice of Peace and file a private information against various court staff in Brampton.

Analysis

[9] I have reviewed the Applicant’s application detail. The relief claimed is the same as the relief claimed in the previous court matters. The only difference here is that the damages he seeks are higher, and that he is laying blame for the loss of the Property with the City of Brampton and its Mayor. The basis of his claim can be summarized as follows:

a. That the Respondents delayed rectification of title of the Property by suppressing information and documents of fraud that would have helped Peel Regional Police; b. That this suppression led to his false arrest and false imprisonment in May 2022 and 2024; c. That the Respondents are collecting proceeds of crime and are profiting from activities of a criminal organization; d. That the Respondents knew the Peel Police committed various crimes associated with his home.

[10] With respect to the Mayor specifically, the sole allegations are that he was re-elected in 2022 on a platform of public safety but he is aiding the “criminal organization.”

[11] The Applicant also made numerous allegations against the Peel Regional Police, regarding his attendance at the Property in 2022 and 2024. He made allegations about the Director of Titles, and alleged that the National Bank and their counsel were a criminal organization. He also made numerous allegations against the Crown Attorney in relation to his criminal proceedings. None of these other individuals or organizations are named as parties.

[12] The principles governing the application of r.2.1 has succinctly laid out in Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690 at par. 8. No evidence is permitted and I may only refer to the pleadings, the law and written submissions. I can also review other pleadings if they are relevant.

[13] Rule 2.1 provides a gate keeping function to weed out those claims are frivolous, vexatious or an abusive on their face and where there is a basis in law to resort to this rule: Martinez v Ontario 2024 ONCA 80 at 4.

[14] The hallmarks of a vexatious litigant were summarized in Ahmed v. Ontario (Attorney General) 2021 ONCA 427 and Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission 2020 ONCA 720 at 18-20, which include someone who brings multiple proceedings to determine the same issue, and someone who brings proceeding that no reasonable person would expect to obtain relief.

[15] After reviewing this Application and the submissions, I find that this application cannot succeed. There is no connection between the City of Brampton and the Mayor, and what happened to the Applicant when he lost his home in 2015, nine years ago. Any action taken by the police against the Applicant when he attended at the property in 2022 and 2024, also has no connection to the City and the Mayor. The majority of the Applicant’s complaints are against other parties against whom he has already commenced court proceedings, and which were already dismissed. While the Respondents herein are new, nothing else is.

[16] On its face, this action cannot succeed. It is not within the power of the City and the Mayor to rectify title. There is no connection between the relief sought and the parties against whom he seeks this relief. Likewise, any claim for damages cannot be linked to the Respondents. There is no factual basis pleaded to support the allegation that the City and the Mayor are somehow profiting from this situation. It is an abuse of process and the proceedings are vexatious. This Application is dismissed pursuant to r.2.1.

Fowler Byrne, J.