Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-25-0067-00 Date: 2025-09-23
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Brenda Gee Self-Represented
- and -
Edward Kiernan Sabrina Lucenti Sean Dewart A.D. Hilliard
Defendant Defendant Defendant S. Levine-Poch, for the Defendant
HEARD: In writing
Regional Senior Justice W.D. Newton
Judgment
Overview
[1] By endorsement dated June 30, 2025, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the parties that the court is considering making an order staying or dismissing this action under Rule 2.1.01 because it appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court.
[2] The Registrar gave notice to the parties on July 21, 2025, and the plaintiff was informed that the action would be stayed or dismissed unless, within 15 days of receiving notice, she filed written submissions responding to the notice.
[3] Ms. Gee has not filed any submissions in response to the notice.
The Claim
[4] On May 23, 2025, Brenda Gee caused a statement of claim to be issued at "The Brenda Gee court at The Norfolk courthouse". She sued Edward Kiernan, Sabrina Lucenti, Sean Dewart and A. D. Hilliard.
[5] The following are excerpts from her claim:
I herein claim that Edward Kiernan, Sabina Lucneti and Sean Dewart have all interfered with my right to a trial by jury. I have been wrongful administration as a statutory person administratively by A. D. Hilliard.
I herein order that Edward Kiernan, Sabrina Lucent and Sean Dewart be restrained from any involvement as legal representatives in any of my claims in any court.
I herein order that A.D. Hilliard be refrained from judging any case involving me in any common courthouse.
I chose not to have any legal interference but rather a trial by jury of common men and woman that understand common language, not legal administrative fiction with fictitious legal titles with infringing obligations.
I do not believe I can get a fair trial when wrongfully judged by a biased statutory officer and legal interference from a legal representative using confusing administrative language and forms meant for legal person
I claim the supreme law of Canada not Corporation and not statutory person.
The supreme law of Canada recognizes the right to counsel not legal representative interference. I believe the supreme law of Canada recognizes all reasonable rights and freedoms such as:
a. The unwritten common law for any private man or woman.
b. The right to a fair and lawful trial by jury without legal interference.
c. The right to not have my rights and freedoms infringed on by biased standalone statutory judging.
d. The right of association is a private self-governing woman with God inspired free will living in a free society without wrongful and repugnant personage and legal titles.
e. The right to non-consent to any statutes or statutory personage and statutory ministry of language and form and procedures that infringe on my common-law private standing.
I have a superior claim and I demand the right to be heard by a jury in a non-statutory court of law without legal interference and biased standalone statutory judging and administration that must have consent or agreement to have lawful force or effect.
Background
[6] Although not discernible from the statement of claim, this claim has its genesis in an endorsement dated January 6, 2025, in a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court in Norfolk County. In that proceeding William Fair is the applicant and Brenda Gee is the respondent. Mr. Fair is represented by Mr. Kiernan. Justice A. D. Hilliard was the presiding judge on January 16, 2025, and the author of the endorsement.
[7] Justice Hilliard noted Ms. Gee in default, allowed Mr. Fair's motion, dismissed Ms. Gee's oral motion for a stay of the order of Bordin J., and ordered that Ms. Gee pay costs fixed at $1,130 to Mr. Fair. The endorsement set out that Ms. Gee had no right to a jury trial in a family law proceeding in Ontario.
[8] Ms. Lucenti and Mr. Dewart are lawyers authorised to practice law in the Province of Ontario. I cannot discern from the claim why they are being sued by Ms. Gee.
The Test under Rule 2.1.01
[9] 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), 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.
[10] As Centa J. noted in Proctor v. Penske Truck Leasing:
[6] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. A frivolous proceeding is one that is readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success. A frivolous application is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail.
[7] A vexatious action is one taken to annoy or embarrass the opposite party or is conducted in a vexatious manner.
Analysis and Disposition
[11] Having read the claim generously as required, the claim is readily recognizable as devoid of merit. Ms. Gee has no right to a jury trial for her family law proceeding. The claims against Mr. Kiernan, Mr. Fair's lawyer are also without merit and vexatious. There is no basis for any claim specified against Ms. Lucenti or Mr. Dewart.
[12] The action is dismissed.
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton, R.S.J.
Released: September 23, 2025