Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00707907-0000 DATE: 20240208 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Marline Jenkins, Plaintiff -and- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Defendant

BEFORE: Robert Centa J.

COUNSEL: Marline Jenkins, self-represented Carole Jenkins, for the defendant

HEARD: February 8, 2024

Endorsement

[1] The registrar’s office referred this motion to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request from lawyers for the defendant, under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] On January 11, 2024, I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff that the court was considering making an order dismissing the action under rule 2.1.01. The registrar provided that notice on January 12, 2024, and invited the plaintiff to make written submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed. The plaintiff did not provide written submissions by the deadline.

Rule 2.1

[3] Rule 2.1.01 permits the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. In Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100, Myers J. explained:

Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the “culture shift” mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The new rule tailors appropriate procedural fairness for the category of cases involved and is an example of early resolution of civil cases that is very much in line with the goals set out in Hryniak.

[4] The Court of Appeal approved of this approach in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[5] A frivolous or vexatious motion lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. Frivolous and vexatious proceedings are often identified by, among other features, their multiplicity and their use of rambling language which makes discerning a legitimate cause of action very difficult: Van Sluytman v Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692, at para. 11.

[6] The court is not to use rule 2.1.01 for close calls. However, neither the opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to proceedings or motions that are clearly frivolous and vexatious. Allowing such proceedings to occupy space on the court docket takes time away from other, more meritorious cases. There is simply no benefit to allowing clearly frivolous and vexatious proceedings to continue: Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2023 ONSC 73, at para. 26; Foley v. Victoria Hospital London Health Services Centre, 2023 ONSC 4978, at para. 5.

[7] I find that the plaintiff’s action is frivolous and vexatious. The five-paragraph statement of claim does not plead a legally cognizable claim against the defendant. The plaintiff does not plead any material facts that could support a claim for any damages, much less the $25 million in damages sought. I find that the action lacks a legal basis or legal merit and has been brought without reasonable grounds.

[8] In addition, the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s request that she provide submissions to explain why the action should not be dismissed is concerning. I infer that the plaintiff is not serious about pursuing this litigation and is abusing the court’s process.

[9] I find that this action is frivolous and vexatious. I dismiss the action under rule 2.1.01.

Robert Centa J. Date: February 8, 2024