Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-22-00000130 Date: 2025-09-23 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Rory A. Van Sluytman, Applicant/Responding Party And: His Majesty the King in the Right of Ontario, Respondent/Moving Party

Before: J. Di Luca J.

Counsel: Applicant/Responding Party, Self-Represented Jennifer Boyczuk, Counsel for the Respondent/Moving Party

Heard: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] This endorsement relates to an application by Mr. Van Sluytman for leave of the court to bring various free-standing motions seeking production of numerous documents from the Crown, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General (incorrectly named as the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services).

[2] This endorsement also addresses a motion by the Respondent seeking an order striking or expunging from the record documents from a Crown brief that the applicant has obtained through the criminal disclosure process.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I decline to grant Mr. Van Sluytman's application. The motions have no prospect of success and amount to an abuse of the Court's process.

[4] I also grant the respondent's motion. The portions of the record that contain excerpts from disclosure provided to Mr. Van Sluytman shall be struck from the record and removed from the court file.

Brief Background

[5] On June 21, 2017, Mr. Van Sluytman was declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act by Wood J.

[6] On January 16, 2018, the Order of Wood J. was upheld on appeal, see Van Sluytman v. Muskoka (District Municipality), 2018 ONCA 32. In its decision, the Court of Appeal noted that the vexatious litigant designation was "amply justified."

[7] Mr. Van Sluytman remains a vexatious litigant and requires leave of the court under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act prior to commencing any civil matters.

[8] As set out in the application before the court, which was commenced on October 1, 2022, Mr. Van Sluytman seeks leave to bring the following motions:

a. A motion for the District Municipality of Muskoka to produce any materials in their possession involving any type of complaint submitted by anyone, public or tenant, for as far back as they have kept records that involve any of the women who are involved with the charges placed against the applicant on August 14, 2022: [names of four complainants];

b. A motion for the Bracebridge OPP (detachment at 690 Cedar Lane, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1P2) to provide the applicant a copy of any record made involving the women [names of four complainants] while at the 845 Bethune Drive South, Gravenhurst, ON property;

c. A motion for the District Municipality of Muskoka to produce any material related to the applicant's complaint email submitted to them on August 15, 2022 showing how they have tried to resolve the applicant's complaints, including how they intend to resolve;

d. A motion to have the Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Service, Freedom of Information and Privacy Office at 200 First Avenue West, North Bay, ON, P1B 3B9, Tele: 1-855-273-3080 or 1-705-494-3080 to confirm and produce a copy of any call made on August 14, 2022 regarding the occurrence at the 845 Bethune Drive South, Gravenhurst, ON building that occurred around 4:00 PM; and,

e. An order for the Ontario Provincial Police to produce an uncensored CPIC Response Report for the women [names of four complainants].

[9] Based on the material filed in the application record, it appears that these motions relate to an incident that occurred at Mr. Van Sluytman's place of residence on August 14, 2022 following which he was charged with a number of criminal offences relating to four named complainants.

[10] It also appears that Mr. Van Sluytman was provided with disclosure in relation to these criminal charges, much of which has been included in the application record. Mr. Van Sluytman also brought an application for production of third-party records in the Ontario Court of Justice, seeking production of the records he is now requesting through these proposed motions. That application was dismissed on August 18, 2023.

[11] Mr. Van Sluytman is of the view that the criminal charges are malicious and that the allegations against him have been concocted by the four named complainants. He is also of the view that the Ontario Provincial Police did not properly investigate the case and that Legal Aid Ontario has improperly denied him funding. Lastly, he is of the belief that the court process is "incompetent."

[12] On January 26, 2024, the criminal charges relating to the August 14, 2022 incident were withdrawn.

[13] Interspersed with his various claims, Mr. Van Sluytman also references a long-standing history of complaints with his landlord, which appears to be the Municipality of Muskoka, and the Landlord and Tenant Board, which has addressed issues he has raised over the years.

[14] While it is difficult to discern from his materials, it appears that Mr. Van Sluytman is seeking this information in order to assist with his defence of the criminal charges (which is now moot), as well as in contemplation of seeking some form civil redress. More recently, he has indicated that he wishes this information in order to pursue a private prosecution against the four named complainants.

[15] In support of his application, Mr. Van Sluytman has filed in excess of 5000 pages of material on Case Center.

The Legal Test

[16] The Court may only grant leave where the applicant establishes that the proposed proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proposed proceedings, see Van Sluytman v. Ontario, 2024 ONSC 4855 at para. 6 and Olumide v. Thompson Reuters, 2019 ONSC 997 at para. 5.

[17] In deciding this issue, I am cognizant of the fact that a vexatious litigant designation does not remove any and all opportunity to advance a claim. Notwithstanding the designation, vexatious litigants have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have a legitimate need to seek recourse through the courts, see Chavali v. Law Society of Upper Canada at para. 17. The goal is not to punish the litigant, but rather to limit the costs to the system and others caused by the conduct of a vexatious litigant, see Falardeau v. Owen Sound Police Service Board, 2021 ONSC 6180 at para. 57.

[18] Having reviewed the materials filed, I am not satisfied that the applicant has met his onus. I decline to grant leave for the following reasons:

a. The proposed motions have no prospect of success. At common law and under s. 19(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Crown cannot be compelled to produce documents in a matter in which it is not a party. There is no ongoing civil proceeding in relation to these proposed motions in which the Crown is a party;

b. The material filed establishes no basis in law for seeking production of the sought after materials for use in future hypothetical civil actions or private criminal prosecution;

c. The proposed motions are an "end-run" around the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provisions;

d. The application establishes no basis on which the court can order production of information held on CPIC in relation to the four named complainants;

e. Any documents held by the District Municipality of Muskoka are not in the Crown's possession; and,

f. The applicant has already brought and lost a third-party record application in the Ontario Court of Justice in relation to the records sought.

[19] The application is dismissed in its entirety. The applicant shall not be permitted to file any further materials and/or submissions in relation to this matter.

[20] I turn next to the respondent's motion relating to the inclusion of the disclosure brief from the criminal proceedings in the application record filed on this application. The respondent correctly notes that Mr. Van Sluytman has not complied with D.P. v. Wagg, which governs the use of criminal disclosure briefs in other proceedings. It is well recognized that there are public interest concerns over the dissemination of criminal disclosure briefs. In the absence of vetting through the Wagg process, a criminal disclosure brief is not to be used in other proceedings.

[21] The respondent's motion is granted at documents found at Case Center, specifically pages A28-A86, A2850-A2908, A1035-A1063, A1695-A1753, A1774-A1778 and A1921-A1979 shall be struck from the record and removed from the court file.

[22] There will be no order as to costs.

J. Di Luca J.

Date: September 23, 2025