Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al., 2015 ONCA 733

• Judge: Blair, Hourigan and D. Brown, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Wednesday October 28, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2015 ONCA 733;(2015), 343 O.A.C. 87 (CA);343 OAC 87

Scaduto v. LSUC (2015), 343 O.A.C. 87 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.006

Giuliano Scaduto (applicant/appellant) v. Law Society of Upper Canada and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents/respondents)

(C60487; 2015 ONCA 733)

Indexed As: Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Blair, Hourigan and D. Brown, JJ.A.

November 2, 2015.

Summary:

Scaduto appealed the dismissal of his application against the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario as being frivolous or vexatious under rule 2.1.01(1). The motion judge had found that Scaduto's complaints were an attempt to re-litigate the issues in his failed Workplace Safety and Insurance Board claim. Scaduto submitted that the motion judge erred in law by not reviewing the evidence filed in his supplementary application record.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The motion judge did not err in law or fact in the approach he took or in the conclusion he reached.

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - The applicant appealed the dismissal of his application as being frivolous or vexatious under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 2.1 came into force on July 1, 2014 - The Ontario Court of Appeal fully endorsed the case law provided by the motion judge in the interpretation and operation of rule 2.1 - "Under this line of authority, the court has recognized that the rule should be interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. However, the use of the rule should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process." - See paragraphs 7 to 9.

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - The applicant appealed the dismissal of his application as being frivolous or vexatious under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure - He alleged that the application judge erred in law by failing to have regard to the evidence he filed in his supplementary application record - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - "The focus under r. 2.1 is on the pleadings and any submissions of the parties made pursuant to the rule. The role of the motion judge is to determine whether on its face, and in light of any submissions, the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. ... Rule 2.1 is designed to permit the court to dismiss frivolous or vexatious proceedings in a summary manner. Resort to evidence defeats the purpose of the rule ... . The application judge did not err in restricting his analysis to a review of the notice of application and [the appellant's] written submissions. Based on this material, he was able to conclude that the pleading was, on its face, frivolous and vexatious, and incapable of success. ... [T]he application judge did not err in law or fact in the approach he took or in the conclusion he reached." - See paragraphs 10 to 13.

Practice - Topic 5398

Dismissal of action - Order of dismissal - Appeal or application to set aside - [See second Practice - Topic 5370].

Cases Noticed:

Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) (2014), 37 C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2014 ONSC 1 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) (2014), 37 C.L.R.(4th) 7; 2014 ONSC 6497 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Raji v. Border Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Covenoho v. Ceridian Canada, 2015 ONSC 2468 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 2.1.01 [para. 1].

Rules of Court (Ont.) - see Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.).

Counsel:

Giuliano Scaduto, appellant, acting in person;

Antonios T. Antoniou and Frank Caruso, for the respondent, Law Society of Upper Canada;

Jeremy Glick and Heather Burnett, for the respondent, Attorney General for Ontario.

This appeal was heard on October 28, 2015, before Blair, Hourigan and D. Brown, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court delivered the following endorsement, dated November 2, 2015.