Law Times

Law Times • June 18, 2012 Court labels former JP a vexatious litigant But Regis Jogendra says he was 'following the advice of a Crown' NEWS BY KENDYL SEBESTA Law Times A ments following the June 11 deci- sion by Ontario Superior Court Justice Glenn Hainey in Her Maj- esty the Queen v. Jogendra. Hainey granted an application by the Ministry of the Attorney General that sought to declare Jogendra a vexatious litigant. "Mr. Jogendra' lowing the advice of a Crown" when he began launching mul- tiple legal proceedings against public officials. Regis Jogendra made the com- sonable complaints, civil actions, and private criminal proceedings satisfies most, if not all, of the cri- teria to be applied in determining whether someone is a vexatious litigant," wrote Hainey. "He has brought one or more proceedings to determine an issue that has al- ready been determined. "It is obvious that his claims s litany of unrea- cannot succeed. His proceed- ings are brought for an improper purpose and not the assertion of legitimate rights. The grounds and issues raised by him have been rolled forward into subse- quent complaints and proceed- ings and include many of the lawyers who have acted against him. The original claim for re- imbursement is without merit, Mr. Jogendra has failed to pay over $18,000 in costs awards, and he has persistently brought unmeritorious and unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions." But Jogendra, who represented former justice of the peace labelled a vexa- tious litigant last week says he was just "fol- judge of the Superior Court prior to instituting or continuing any civil proceedings in any court. In addition, such an application for leave pursuant to s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act would require at least 10 days' written notice to the ministry. Hainey dismissed, however, the ministry's motion seeking the same requirement for crimi- nal proceedings. " tious conduct will undoubtedly continue, Mr. Jogendra from responding to proceedings launched against him or pursuing civil proceedings with the leave of this court; but it will prevent him from continuing or initiating vexatious civil litigation in the courts of this province. "My order will not preclude compelling reason to substitute a Superior Court judge for a jus- tice of the peace to determine Hainey continued: "I see no " Absent such an order, his vexa- " wrote Hainey. if any future private criminal charges instituted by Mr. Jogen- dra have merit. The record in this case demonstrates that the pre-enquete procedure under the Criminal Code worked well since none of Mr. Jogendra' and vexatious private criminal informations went beyond the pre-enquete hearing stage and process was never issued. s frivolous surprised him given that, in his view, he was acting in accordance with information provided to him by government officials. "I don't know how Justice Jogendra says Hainey's ruling " Jogendra's long-standing battle surprising. I'm not a malicious person and I have nothing against the Crown as long as they are do- ing the right thing. s very Hainey was unable to see that I was simply doing what Mr. Kenneth Campbell told me to do: to pursue this through the court system," says Jogendra in reference to a letter he received from the Ontario ombudsman' office that noted the position of Kenneth Campbell, then-direc- tor of the Crown law office, on s last week, Jogendra has since 2009 "instituted a myriad of civil, ad- ministrative, regulatory, and pri- vate criminal proceedings against the Crown and its employees, ju- dicial officials, and other adjudica- tors, and many of the lawyers who represent them." Last week' According to Hainey's ruling " proceedings arose from the min- istry' s ruling noted the dra for legal fees he incurred in defending himself against "several sexual assault charges that arose while he was carrying out his du- ties as a justice of the peace. alleged assaults occurred between " The s refusal to reimburse Jogen- for judicial indemnification in relation to earlier proceedings against him. "Given all the evidence, it' ed by Jogendra to Law Times that he received from an early resolu- tion officer with the Ontario ombudsman in June 2007 in re- gards to his request for indemni- fication, Campbell had suggest- ed Jogendra' June 1997 and March 1999. The Crown withdrew the charges against Jogendra in the sexual as- sault cases. According to a letter provid- to "pursue this matter through the court system." Jogendra says he simply fol- lowed Campbell's advice. s only recourse was of $10,000 against Jogendra. He has 30 days to pay the costs award from the date of the decision. Jogendra disagrees with the Hainey also made a costs award PAGE 3 costs award. "Costs should not have been ordered in this case. How can I afford to pay $10,000? It is a significant amount of money and I am retired. How can I pay this?" LT EXPAND YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF MORTGAGE REMEDIES CARSWELL eREFERENCE LIBRARY® MARRIOTT & DUNN: PRACTICE IN MORTGAGE REMEDIES IN ONTARIO, 5TH EDITION GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP, RECOVERY SERVICES GROUP himself, says the Superior Court lacked the jurisdiction to make the order because it would affect his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pursue legal action. "It is very surprising, Jogendra. "No one, including the Crown, should be above the law. According to Hainey's deci- " says " sion, Jogendra argued the court shouldn't consider his unpaid costs awards in deciding whether to declare him a vexatious litigant. The decision also noted Jo- gendra's submission that Hainey couldn't consider administrative, regulatory, and private criminal proceedings brought by him "be- cause they do not constitute pro- ceedings within the meaning of s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act." Hainey, however, ruled oth- Online or in print, Marriott & Dunn: Practice in Mortgage Remedies in Ontario, 5th Edition gives you immediate access to the leading case law in foreclosure, judicial sale, power of sale, redemption, actions on the covenant and related issues in Ontario. PRACTICAL TOOLS FOR EVERYDAY USE LOOSELEAF SERVICE PLUS ONLINE eREFERENCE ORDER # L99195-65203 $379 3 volume looseleaf supplemented book + Online service Anticipated upkeep cost – $295 per supplement 4-6 supplements per year Supplements invoiced separately L99195 ONLINE ACCESS ONLY ORDER # L99196-65203 $334 Anticipated upkeep cost – $2 per supplement 4-6 supplements per year Supplements invoiced separately L99196 60 LOOSELEAF SERVICE ONLY ORDER # 9349414-65203 $379 3 volume looseleaf supplemented book Anticipated upkeep cost – $295 per supplement 4-6 supplements per year Supplements invoiced separately 0-459-34941-4 erwise. "The Court of Appeal has made it clear that I am entitled to consider these other proceedings to assess the bona fides of the legal proceedings he has initiated and continued to pursue, the ministry sought judicial su- pervision over any future litiga- tion launched by Jogendra if the court declared him a vexatious litigant. Hainey ruled Jogendra would have to obtain leave of a The application brought by " he wrote. www.lawtimesnews.com • Expert commentary and analysis • More than 250 forms and precedents • Summary of proceedings in foreclosure and sale proceedings and when exercising power of sale • • Fully annotated full-text version of the Mortgages Act (Ontario) Fully annotated Rules 64, 54 & 55 ONLINE ACCESS ON eREFERENCE Subscribe to Marriott and Dunn: Practice in Mortgage Remedies in Ontario,5th Edition – Print + Online or Online Only – and get online access for an unlimited number of users at the same location. It's like getting unlimited copies for the price of one.* As part of the Carswell eReference Library®, the eReference looseleaf offers the convenience of seamlessly integrated updates and the efficiency of searching and tracking features. *Pricing is different for IP authentication users. AVAILABLE RISK-FREE FOR 30 DAYS Order online at www.carswell.com/ereference Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 Shipping and handling are extra. Prices subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes.

• Cover