Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00000153 Date: 2025-09-25 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

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

Before: J. Di Luca J.

Counsel: Applicant/Responding Party, Self-Represented No one appearing for the Respondent

Heard: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] This is an application by Mr. Van Sluytman for leave of the court to bring various proceedings relating to his involvement with his landlord and the Landlord and Tenant Board.

[2] The application was filed on August 6, 2025. At this stage, the Respondent has not filed any responding materials. At the direction of the Edwards R.S.J., the matter was placed before me for determination in writing.

[3] Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that there is no need to await a response from the Respondent.

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

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, Mr. Van Sluytman seeks leave to bring the following proceedings:

a. An appeal at the Divisional Court of the decision made by the Landlord and Tenant Board on July 17, 2025 for case file LTB-T-070618022. On this issue, Mr. Van Sluytman explains, "I have discovered two new issues of the landlord, one of which is that the tenants living above me are not registered as the tenants to unit 212 as described in Tab 9 and supported in Tab 10. This should also include an order to stay the applying to appeal as I have been waiting weeks to hear from the Lake Country Legal Clinic regarding how I am to appeal the July 17, 2017 decision; Jayson Swain 705-645-6607 ext 223. I am of low income as can be seen in Tab 2 and this proceeding also wastes time which I ask of the court to review Tabs 1, 3, 4 to ensure that I am not being mistreated and that my Charter Rights are being upheld (s.15(2),26). The intended party would be the Landlord Tenant Board of Ontario. As advised by the court." [sic]

b. An application at the Bracebridge courthouse regarding the issues relating to a poorly installed air conditioning unit at his unit. In relation to this proposed application, Mr. Van Sluytman states "I will challenge how s.20, 22 of the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act is being upheld regarding the leaking air conditioner unit only. I intend to bring the landlord (District), the Lake Country Community Legal Clinic, Town of Gravenhurst, Ontario Ombudsman and His Majesty in right of Ontario to review what they currently think as adequate and reasonable service regarding addressing a leaking air conditioner and the amount of time to resolve. As advised by counsel at the time of drafting. As advised by the court."

c. An application to review how his Bracebridge application CV-17-46 "is being handled."

[9] In support of this application, Mr. Van Sluytman has filed approximately 1500 pages of material. The material canvasses a vast multitude of complaints and issues Mr. Van Sluytman has had with the Landlord and Tenant Board, his landlord, other residents at his building, his internet service provider, Canada Post, the Canada Post Ombudsman, the Ontario Ombudsman, a local grocery store and many others over several years.

[10] While a theme is difficult to discern, it is clear to Mr. Van Sluytman that his many problems are all interconnected and intertwined. Moreover, the nature, style and content of his materials display all the hallmarks of a vexatious litigant.

The Legal Test

[11] 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.

[12] 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.

[13] 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 applicant proposes to launch an appeal of the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 17, 2025, which was a review of an earlier decision by the Landlord and Tenant Board dated April 24, 2025, dismissing Mr. Van Sluytman's complaints against his landlord due to his failure to attend the hearing by Zoom. An appeal to the Divisional Court is only available on a question of law, see Jedadiah Drummond v. Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, 2024 ONSC 4658 at para. 12-13. Even allowing some latitude for the fact that Mr. Van Sluytman is a self-represented individual with low income and various other struggles, there is nothing remotely approaching a question of law raised in the materials.

b. In relation to the proposed application to address the leaking air conditioner unit, I am not satisfied that Mr. Van Sluytman has demonstrated the requisite degree of merit. Moreover, the materials strongly suggest that the application would simply be a forum for Mr. Van Sluytman to air out his multitude of grievances against any and all service providers he has encountered. As such, it would also be an abuse of the Court's process.

c. Lastly, there is simply no merit to an application that seeks to review how another application is being handled by the Court.

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

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

J. Di Luca J.

Date: September 25, 2025