Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00742588-0000 Date: 2025-11-20 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: Mirko Toccacelia, Plaintiff And: Erika Yolanda Vera, Defendant

Before: L. Brownstone J.

Counsel: Self-represented Plaintiff Stephen Brunswick, for the Defendant

Heard: November 20, 2025

Endorsement

[1] On October 14, 2025, I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under r. 2.1.01(2). The registrar provided that notice on October 23, 2025, and invited written submissions from the plaintiff as to why the proceeding should not be dismissed.

[2] The plaintiff provided an affidavit in response. I have considered that affidavit insofar as it contains argument or submissions. I have not considered it as providing evidence, as no evidence is admissible on a rule 2.1 motion. The motion is to be determined on the face of the pleadings and submissions. The frivolous, vexations, or abusive nature of the proceeding should be apparent on its face: Tewari v. Sekhorn, 2024 ONCA at para. 5: Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 11.

[3] I have determined, for the following reasons, that the claim should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

[4] Rule 2.1.01(1) provides as follows:

The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[5] This rule is not for "close calls". The jurisprudence is clear that the rule is a blunt instrument. Further, the rule does not replace the other rules under which proceedings may be struck out or procedural irregularities may be dealt with in a summary way. There are other available remedies that exist when problems with a case are not apparent on the face of the pleading: Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320 at paras. 7, 15.

[6] Self-represented parties are not held to the drafting standards of the profession. The court must review the claim and supporting submissions, if any, to determine the crux of the complaint and whether it could, read generously, support a cause of action.

[7] However, this does not mean that the rule should not be robustly applied. When obviously frivolous or vexatious proceedings are permitted to proceed, it is not just the adverse party who suffers by spending time and costs that may never be recoverable. Failure to contain frivolous proceedings also expends court resources that must be kept available for claims that are not frivolous or vexatious. The rule is to be applied robustly, but not lightly or dismissively: Bradley Court Limited v. Tinkasimire, 2024 ONSC 2367; Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100.

[8] A claim is frivolous or vexatious if it lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been commenced without reasonable grounds. The doctrine of abuse of process is flexible and enables the court to prevent misuse of its procedure in any way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Attempts to relitigate a matter or collaterally attack other findings are examples of an abuse of process. It is improper to "attempt to impeach a judicial finding by the impermissible route of relitigation in a different forum": Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 SCR 77 at para. 46.

[9] The plaintiff seeks damages for abuse of process, misrepresentation and fraud, defamation, and special and punitive damages. The amount sought, excluding special damages, interest, and costs, is $2,800,000.

[10] The claim relates to a matrimonial dispute. The plaintiff claims that the defendant, a paralegal, has been abusing the judicial system to alienate a child from her father, the plaintiff. The defendant is the mother of the child. The claim seeks damages for the defendant having commenced a family law proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice and for the manner in which those proceedings unfolded.

[11] The plaintiff complains that his parenting time is restricted. He complains about periods of time in which he was unable to see the child due to orders made in other proceedings. He complains the defendant made unreasonable requests in her settlement offers. He complains about the trial process. He complains that the defendant was successful in her costs submissions after trial.

[12] The plaintiff pleads that he filed an appeal of the Ontario Court of Justice decision, but was unable to pay the security of costs ordered against him. He has costs awards outstanding. The court was provided with several endorsements from the family court proceedings. In the February 24, 2025, endorsement ordering security for costs in respect of the appeal, Hood J. stated in part:

While the appeal may not reach the level of being vexatious litigation, I am of the view that it is irresponsible litigation being conducted without regard to the merits of the case or the costs likely to be incurred. It is unfair to the respondent to be put in the position of having to respond to a questionable appeal, without earlier cost awards being paid, without child support being paid and without some assurance that she will receive some costs for this appeal. As a result, the respondent is entitled to an order for security for costs.

[13] In August 2025, Stevenson J., after referring to orders made by Shin Doi J. and Horkins J., noted that the plaintiff's numerous outstanding costs awards against him "do not appear to deter him from pursuing seemingly endless, meritless motions and appeals".

[14] In his submissions in response to the notice sent to him that the court was considering making an order under rule 2.1, the plaintiff reiterates his complaints set out in the claim, which I have summarized above.

[15] Although framed as complaints against the defendant, it is clear that the statement of claim is a collateral attack on court orders made in a family law proceeding. It is an attempt to relitigate matters because the plaintiff does not like the decisions that were made in those proceedings. His complaints about evidence that was adduced in those proceedings should be made in an appeal, not in a lawsuit commenced against the adverse party.

[16] The plaintiff is engaging in an impermissible collateral attack. The litigation is doomed to fail. It is an obvious abuse of process. It is an abusive attempt to continue the family law proceedings in a different guise. Given the plethora of motions brought within the family law appeal, as referred to recently by Stevenson J. and noted above, I also have significant concern that the plaintiff would abuse the ordinary processes of the court: Asghar v Alon, 2015 ONSC 7823 at para. 4.

[17] For the above reasons, the claim is dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

L. Brownstone J.

Date: November 20, 2025