Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s Madam Justice Ryan Bell (“Bell”)
Errors, Omissions and Obfuscation Analysis
of her “Legal Decision” prepared to facilitate Theft Over and deny me any relief for the obvious theft of $500,000 in property
Introduction:
- Eviction Scam:
- OPS-enabled crime/child abuse:
- Civil Action: Original Statement of Claim, Statements of Defense
- Rule 2 Request to Dismiss: all defendants requested that the Civil Action be dismissed as vexatious, abuse of process
- Fresh Amended Statement of Claim (no replies/amended statements of defense): Amended Statement of Claim,
- Rule 21 Motion to Dismiss:
- OPS Extortion:
- Crooked judges prior to Bell: Kershman, Gomery
- Related smear campaign (“homeless”, broke, etc. used in divorce proceedings) >> link to Kiska/CAS/OCS/BellBaker/SCJ (MacEachern-Fraser-Engelking-Audet & Divisional court judges)
- Other accomplices Paule Kemgni & Calum MacLeod
Note that former case management Justice Kershman bailed on this Motion as he previously produced a biased order in favour of the defendants and likely knew Moore would ask him to recuse himself (link to Kershman page). Note that next-assigned judge Sally Gomery recused herself upon request due to two former biased decisions (www.pfi.rocks/organized-crime/vis/sally-gomery).
Bell’s Decision: —– also available on canlii.org >> (link to article for Twitter: “See the Problem? Legislation is Currently Useless”
Transcript of the yymmdd hearing: —–
List of ?28? citations provided by Bell on behalf of defendants
PAGE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUTION: 20220926
Bell’s heavily biased (& negligent & error-laden) “Overview” || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
001_01 In her “Fresh Amended Statement of Claim” (the “Claim”), Deidre Ann Moore seeks:
(i) $500,000 in compensatory damages “due to the loss and/or theft of her property following an eviction scam, the de-frauding of her and/or the unjust enrichment enjoyed by” Khaldoon Habib-Allah (the “Landlord”), Lamah El-Rayes (the “Real Estate Agent”), Diego Fernandez-Stoll (the “Paralegal”), and Jonathan Kiska (the “Former Spouse”);1 (ii) $100,000 in pecuniary damages due to “negligence, the knowing assistance of fraud, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, malice and/or negligent infliction of emotional suffering” by the Ottawa Police Service (the “Police”); and (iii) $100,000 in pecuniary damages due to the “intentional infliction of emotional suffering, malice and/or negligent infliction of emotional suffering” by the individual defendants. |
(replace text)
Following the 2019 forced sale of her second 3-bedroom home due to the lack of meaningful spousal or child support from Mr. Kiska, Ms. Moore moved herself and her children to a rental property. The following year, Mr. Kiska participated in an eviction scam which resulted in the theft of everything in that home: $500,000 in furnishings, clothing and all of her children’s belongings. Mr. Kiska then gloated about it by text and via a LinkedIn Reaction “Like“ as he prepared to accuse her of criminal harassment. (link to page re Conspiracy to Prosecute, violation of S. of CCC.) Moore DOES NOT “support herself financially through alimony payments”. Kiska refused to pay his fraudulently-obtained, below-poverty-level, court-ordered support of a mere $1,230/month from March to July 2020. Moore has survived financially by using the proceeds from the forced sale of her second home in 2019 following nearly three years of documented fraud and financial abuse by Kiska. (link to pages for accomplices SCJ Justice Julie Audet, Pamela MacEachern & Bell Baker LLP lawyers Wade Smith and Cheryl Hess) |
002_01 The Landlord, the Real Estate Agent, and the Former Spouse previously filed requisitions under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure2 seeking a stay or dismissal of Ms. Moore’s action.
002_02 In her May 10, 2021 endorsement, Gomery J. dismissed the requisitions because she could not “dismiss the possibility that Moore’s core complaint – eviction from rented property and the dispossession of her furniture and belongings – could be legitimate and could give rise to a cause of action against at least some of the defendants.” 002_03 Ms. Moore then filed the Claim. |
002_01 Bell failed to mention that both the Paralegal, Diego Fernandez-Stoll (“Stoll”) and the Ottawa Police Services Board (“OPSB”) also attempted to have the claim dismissed as vexatious, frivolous &/or an abuse of process. Here are the requests from each of the co-defendants:
b) c) d) e) OPSB: 002_02 Bell failed to mention that Gomery also hinted that if defendants chose another route to having the case dismissed, the results would be favourable (link to decision)
002_03 Moore did not then file the Claim. The Claim was obviously filed prior to the defendants attempt to have it dismissed. The original Claim is here: |
003_01 The defendants now move under r. 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the Claim, dismiss the action and/or stay the action.
003_02 All the defendants allege that the Claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board. 003_03 All the defendants contend that the Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against them. |
003_01 A Rule 21 Motion always seems to be used when a lawyer knows that they can line up a crooked judge: legislation to restrict abuse of this rule is completely irrelevant to the proceedings. (See www.pfi.rocks/organized-crime/vis/sally-gomery)
003_02 Of course that is what they’ll claim: they’re crooks and would prefer to not to suffer any consequences for organized crime.
003_03 Of course that is what they’ll claim: they’re crooks and would prefer to not to suffer any consequences for organized crime. |
004_01 Some of the defendants raise additional arguments in support of their positions.
004_02 The Real Estate Agent argues that the claims against him are statute barred by operation of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.3 004_03 The Former Spouse argues that the subject matter of the claim pleaded against him is the subject matter of another proceeding pending in Ontario. 004_04 The Paralegal and the Former Spouse argue that the claim is frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the court’s process. |
004_01 Bell failed to mention that the defendants argued Moore’s inability to pay was a reason she should not be in a position to sue. Why was this omitted? Because it would highlight Moore’s dire financial situation caused by years of fraud perpetuated by two of the five defendants and their accomplices at the SCJ and Bell Baker LLP. (link to various pages re crooked judges & lawyers)
004_02 He lied. I wasn’t aware of the Eviction Scam until May 2019 (link to Lamah El-Rayes)
004_03 He lied: he is demonstrably a pathological liar (link to john-kiska)
004_04 Why did Bell only list Stoll & Kiska? They all did AND this argument was already rejected. |
005_01 If their motions to dismiss the Claim are dismissed, the individual defendants, except the Real Estate Agent, seek orders requiring Ms. Moore to post security for costs. | 005_01 It’s a tad tricky to post security when everything the victim owns has been stolen and she continues to endure ongoing fraud by one of the defendants. (link to SCJ-enabled Fraud page) |
006_01 For the following reasons, the defendants’ motions are granted.
006_02 Ms. Moore’s action is dismissed as against the individual defendants. 006_03 The Claim is struck out in its entirety, without leave to amend. |
005_01, 02, 03 Note how NONE of the arguments submitted by Moore either in writing or verbally made their way into Bell’s so-called “Overview”. As usual, Moore’s testimony and evidence was fully ignored–a Superior Court of Justice specialty (link to page for crooked judge Kevin B. Phillips). Her materials submitted for the Rule 21 Motion are viewable here and her oral testimony is viewable here.
|
1 The titles given to these defendants are based on how they are described on the title of proceedings. 2 R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. 3 S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B. |
|
Summary Omissions from Bell’s “Overview” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
“The Allegations in the Claim” || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
007_01 In the Claim, Ms. Moore alleges that, as a result of matrimonial litigation between her and her Former Spouse, she was forced to sell her bungalow.
Ms. Moore found a three-bedroom townhouse (the “Rental Property”) available for rent. She contacted the Real Estate Agent who offered to hold the Rental Property for her until she was ready to move in. The Real Estate Agent also offered Ms. Moore a monthly, rather than a yearly, lease. |
007_01 x |
008_01 The sale of Ms. Moore’s bungalow closed on Labour Day weekend in 2018. Although she had intended to lease the Rental Property from November 1, 2018, Ms. Moore accepted the Real Estate Agent’s offer that she begin renting the Property on October 1, 2018, in exchange for certain updates being made to it. | 008_01 x |
009_01 In the following months, Ms. Moore identified deficiencies within the Rental Property that the Landlord failed to repair. As a result, beginning January 31, 2019, Ms. Moore withheld the rent due. | 009_01 x |
010_01 On April 8, 2019, the Landlord obtained an eviction order against Ms. Moore for immediate payment of outstanding amounts owing under the lease, failing which the lease would be terminated and the Landlord could move to evict Ms. Moore by filing the eviction order with the sheriff. | 010_01 x |
011_01 In late April or early May 2019, following admission to a hospital in Quebec for a psychiatric assessment, Ms. Moore travelled to the United States. | 011_01 Link to Civil Action against psychiatrist Dr. Paule Kemgni re: collusion with John Kiska to detain Moore so she could not attend a CAS hearing and her well-appointed, 3-bedroom home could be emptied without her knowledge (of which Bell was made aware, see x, y & z). |
012_01 In May 2019, Ms. Moore first learned that she had been evicted from the Rental Property. The Real Estate Agent told her that she should contact the Paralegal or send a cheque to the Landlord: “[f]rom the moment that Moore learned that she had been evicted, she was advised to send various amounts by cheque to some address that she could not confirm; however, no one would provide to her the landlord’s phone number or his email address.”4 As a result, Ms. Moore was unable to send the Landlord any amount owed. | 012_01 x |
013_01 In mid-May 2019, Ms. Moore informed her Former Spouse of her intention “to have the contents of her townhouse packed and stored between May 27-31, 2019.” Her Former Spouse responded, “that he had spoken to Stoll and that he planned to buy the contents of her home unless she paid them in full by May 16, 2019.”5 | 013_01 x |
014_01 On May 25, 2019, the Paralegal emailed Ms. Moore that he could not assist her as it would represent a “conflict of interest” and advised her that she should deal directly with the Landlord and/or the Real Estate Agent. | 014_01 x |
015_01 On June 14, 2019, Ms. Moore contacted the Real Estate Agent who told her not to contact him anymore. | 015_01 x |
016_01 On June 29, 2019, after she had confirmed that the Rental Property had been emptied, Ms. Moore contacted the Landlord to request an email address so that she could transfer the necessary funds to him. Ms. Moore received no reply. | 016_01 x |
017_01 In November 2019, after a period of time when she was “maliciously prosecuted” and incarcerated on charges of criminal harassment against her Former Spouse, Ms. Moore attended at a police station to file a criminal complaint against the individual defendants. Two weeks later, the Police advised her that her complaint was a civil matter. In early 2020, Ms. Moore was notified that her file with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director was closed without further investigation. | 017_01 x |
018_01 While she was detained on the criminal harassment charges, Ms. Moore filed a complaint with the Law Society of Ontario against the Paralegal, who had been retained by the Landlord in connection with the Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding. | 018_01 x |
019_01 Ms. Moore alleges that, as a result of the collective behaviour of the defendants, “[t]he contents of a well-appointed, three-bedroom home have been stolen from Moore and not one of the parties involved would tell her how to get her possessions back.” Ms. Moore alleges that the Children’s Aid Society has used the fact that she is “homeless” and has no income as one of the reasons why she should not be granted any parenting rights.6 | 019_01 x |
020_01 Ms. Moore further alleges that the defendants knew or ought to have known that Ms. Moore was attempting to pay the outstanding rent to the Landlord and to recover her possessions. She alleges that “El-Rayes, Stoll and Allah deliberately assisted Kiska so that he would succeed in family court and completely alienate Moore from her beloved children.”7 | 020_01 x |
021_01 Ms. Moore alleges that the Police “have shown significant indifference and/or malice towards Moore on every police complaint that she has ever filed and, in contrast, assisted in her demise, by laying charges against her without the benefit of an interview – relying solely on the deceit of Kiska for ‘information’ and/or ‘evidence’” and that “OPS continues to be negligent in the performance of its duties to Moore and her children at time of writing.”8 | 021_01 x |
022_01 The Claim alleges, at para. 99, that the acts and omissions of the individual defendants and the Police constitute complicity in: a. the loss and/or theft of her property following an eviction scam, the de-frauding of her and/or the unjust enrichment enjoyed by Allah, El-Rayes, Stoll and/or Kiska, b. negligence, c. fraud and/or knowing assistance of fraud, d. the intentional infliction of emotional suffering, malice and/or negligent infliction of emotional suffering. |
022_01 x |
023_01 Ms. Moore pleads that because of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of the defendants, she has suffered and continues to suffer the following damages: a. the loss of the ability to enjoy her possessions – the fruits of her very successful career, b. the loss of her ability to care for, love, parent and protect her children (and her pets) to Kiska – the man that she knows enjoys verbally, emotionally and psychologically abusing her children (because she lived it), c. severe emotional distress and damage, including mental distress and humiliation, as a result of lack of wardrobe, furniture, household items, safe living arrangements – all symbols of her success, d. the loss of enjoyment as she has been unable to participate in most of the activities of her former life, and e. injury and damage to her sense of worth, sense of security and her deeply personal interests to assist other victims of domestic violence.9 |
023_01 True. This is what happens when everything one has amassed over a successful 30-year career and a joyous motherhood is stolen: any normal human being would understand this. |
024_01 At para. 103 of the Claim, Ms. Moore alleges that “this eviction was part of the new-age domestic violence and/or domestic terrorism that is utilized when a loving mother in Ottawa wants to protect her vulnerable children by divorcing a horrible man connected to white-collar, blue-collar, no collar crime” (emphasis in original). | 024_01 Yes, she did. Bell fully ignored that testimony too.; as well as the remainder of paragraphs 100-103 in the section of her claim subtitle “Damages“.
This allegation was further explained in Moore’s Affidavits and Factum for this Motion and included evidence of the defendants character, details of their means and their obvious motivations. (Link to Moore’s Motion materials.) |
4 The Claim, at para. 65. 5 The Claim, at paras. 57-58. 6 The Claim, at paras. 83-85. 7 The Claim, at paras. 89-90. 8 The Claim, at paras. 92 and 94. 9 The Claim, at para. 100. |
Omissions from “The Allegations in the Claim” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
The “Rule 21.01” Section || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
025_01 The various provisions of r. 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure engaged on these motions are as follows:
(1) A party may move before a judge, (2) No evidence is admissible on a motion, … (b) under clause (1)(b). (3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that, and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly. |
025_01 x |
026_01 A pleading will be struck out under r. 21.01(1)(b) only if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. | 026_01 x |
027_01 By contrast, evidence is admissible on a motion to determine jurisdiction; a court cannot resolve a question of subject matter jurisdiction without a factual foundation: Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston, at para. 10.10 | 027_01 x |
10 2011 ONCA 728, 344 D.L.R. (4th) 332. |
Omissions from the “Rule 21.01” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
“The Real Estate Agent” || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
028_01 The Real Estate Agent’s primary position is that the subject matter of the claims against him fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.
In the alternative, the Real Estate Agent argues that Ms. Moore’s claims against him are statute barred as they are premised on allegations arising from Ms. Moore’s interactions with the Real Estate Agent which occurred more than two years before the action was commenced. In the further alternative, the Real Estate Agent argues that the Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against him. |
028_01 x |
(i) Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction
029_01 To determine whether the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over Ms. Moore’s claims against the Real Estate Agent (and, indeed, the other defendants), the essential character of the dispute must be determined. 029_02 This determination is neither “a matter of semantics nor of the legal labels attached to the claims by one of the parties to the dispute – it is the true substance of the dispute that is determinative”: AC Concrete Forming Ltd. v. The Residential Low Rise Forming Contractors Association of Metropolitan Toronto and Vicinity, at para. 16.11 029_03 The essential character of the dispute is determined by reference to the factual matrix of the dispute: AC Concrete Forming, citing Myrtezaj v. Cintas Canada Ltd., at para. 55.12 |
029_01 Dispute? Moore was robbed blind because selling all of her high-end belongings was worth more to the ?insert seller of high-end belongs? than having her as a tenant. It’s so easy to evict someone without their knowledge while they are being unlawfully detained for a crime they didn’t commit. (link to crooked PQ Crown prosecutor Patrick Cardinal, evidence of false QPP police reports and lawsuit against Paule Kemgni.)
Re: “Factual Matrix”: |
030_01 Ms. Moore’s claims against the individual defendants are based on negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional suffering, and malice, arising from Ms. Moore’s eviction from the Rental Property – described in the Claim as “an eviction scam.”
030_02 There can be no doubt that the essential character of Ms. Moore’s claims against the Real Estate Agent arise from her eviction from the Rental Property in respect of which he was the listing agent. 030_03 The terms of Ms. Moore’s tenancy of the Rental Property were governed by the residential lease between Ms. Moore and the Landlord, subject to the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.13 |
030_01 x |
031_01 The Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all applications under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and with respect to all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by the Act.14 Section 37(1) provides that a tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with the Act.
031_02 Section 39(b) provides that a landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting the tenant has authorized possession. |
031_01 x |
032_01 I agree with the Real Estate Agent’s submission that the issues arising under the residential lease governing the Rental Property – disrepair, eviction, and the application for vacant possession, as pleaded in the Claim – constitute the essential character of the claims against him.
032_02 Ms. Moore’s claims against the Real Estate Agent are confined to her lease and occupation of the Rental Property, her complaints about the state of the rented premises, and the termination of her lease and eviction from the premises in accordance with the order granting vacant possession to the Landlord. 032_03 These are all matters over which the Landlord and Tenant Board retains exclusive jurisdiction: Fraser v. Beach, at paras. 14-15.15 032_04 An order of the Landlord and Tenant Board is final and binding, subject only to the appeal routes as provided for under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. 032_05 Ms. Moore did not pursue her appeal rights under the Act. |
032_01 Why? Moore evidenced the criminal, negligent and/or malicious nature of the defendants, described the means and the motive. Any person would a conscious could easily recognize the “essential character” of the claim.
032_02 Bullsh!t. Moore’s claim also alleged El-Rayes initiation of her eviction without notice as well as his awareness that she was detained! (See paragraphs 34-35, 42, 53-54 in her Fresh Amended Statement of Claim.) Bell is just as much as smarmy, taxpayer-fund participant in Ottawa’s Crime Syndicate* as all the rest of them listed at www.pfi.ROCKS/organized-crime/vis : it will just take a while to prove it.
032_03 Obviously, when crooked judges cherry-picked a pleading in order to identify “matters” that relate only to the LTB, then of course the other matters, by definition, have been effectively ignored by the court to the demise of the plaintiff and for the benefit of the crooks being sued. 032_04 LTB appeal routes are impossible if no one will provide the victim with any documentation: not that this was an LTB matter.
032_05 Moore could not pursue her appeal rights: no one at the City of Ottawa would provide her with any documentation that evidenced her eviction during 2019 and Crown Attorney’s Office threatened her with re-arrest based on another false allegation which prevented her return to Canada until August 2020. (Link to Conspiracy to Prosecute page and career criminal Malcolm Savage page.) *unless Bell botched her decision so badly to haul in a few more crooked judges from Appellant court? |
033_01 Accordingly, I dismiss the action against the Real Estate Agent on the basis that this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action against him. | 033_01 Of course she did. (Insert legislation from OCJ Rules of Civil Procedure & add Kevin B. Phillips use of “broad judicial powers” to facilitate and/or commit crime.) |
(ii) Claim against the Real Estate Agent is statute barred
034_01 In my view, Ms. Moore’s claim against the Real Estate Agent is also statute barred. 034_02 Courts may determine whether a claim is statute barred on a r. 21.01(1)(a) motion, where the determination of the issue does not depend on findings of fact. 034_03 The court may determine a limitations issue on a r. 21.01(1)(a) motion before a statement of defence is filed, where discoverability is not in issue, and no additional facts could be pleaded that would alter the conclusion that a limitation period has expired: Kaynes v. BP, PLC, at paras. 109-110.16 |
034_01 No, it’s not. Moore was not informed that she had been evicted until May 2019: her Claim was issued in April 2019. 034_02 Determination of the issue clearly required a finding of fact.
034_03 This paragraph is irrelevant as El-Rayes filed a Statement of Defence: plus, Moore’s claim is not statute barred. |
035_01 The Real Estate Agent was the listing agent for the Rental Property.
035_02 In relation to the alleged “Bizarre Circumstances of the Townhouse Rental”, para. 21 of the Claim states that although Ms. Moore thought that the Real Estate Agent was “simply being sympathetic to Moore’s situation”, she was “being set up [by the Real Estate Agent] for an eviction scam and the theft of everything that she owned.” |
035_01 True.
035_02 True.
|
036_01 I agree with the Real Estate Agent that the only material acts or omissions attributable to him that could have contributed to the alleged “eviction scam” were those in his capacity as listing agent and therefore, prior to October 1, 2018, the date of Ms. Moore’s tenancy agreement.
036_02 As Ms. Moore’s original statement of claim was not issued until April 6, 2021, her claims against the Real Estate Agent are statute barred: Limitations Act, 2002, s. 4. |
036_01 False. El-Rayes collected the rent cheques each month: the last one being January 2019 due to disrepair of the unit.
As alleged, El-Rayes initiated an eviction in February or March 2019 without Moore’s knowledge while continuing to communicate with her as if there were no issues.
036_02 False. Again, the Statute of Limitations clock starts ticking once the victim is aware of the tort (i.e. May 2019); not when it actually occurred (i.e. February to April 2019). This is common knowledge for any one who has read Rule 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002. Bell must think that Moore is a complete idiot. |
(iii) No reasonable cause of action against the Real Estate Agent
037_01 Finally, the Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Real Estate Agent. 037_02 The constituent elements that must be pleaded when alleging negligence are: (i) the alleged duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (ii) that the defendant breached the alleged duty of care; and (iii) that damage resulted from the breach: Baweja v. Royal Auto Collision, at paras. 53-55.17 037_03 I agree with the Real Estate Agent that the Claim fails to articulate what duty was owed by the Real Estate Agent to Ms. Moore and that there is a paucity of facts pleaded as to how any such duty was breached by the Real Estate Agent’s acts or omissions. 037_04 No material facts were pleaded suggesting that the Real Estate Agent exceeded his authority or acted outside his capacity as agent on behalf of the Landlord in any of his dealings with Ms. Moore. |
037_01 El-Rayes initiated eviction proceedings without notifying Moore and/or while having knowledge that she was detained in Quebec. 037_02 Bell? Moore didn’t allege negligence: did you even read her Statement of Claim? She alleged:
037_03 This is a “red herring”: Moore never claimed that El-Rayes owed her any duty of care or that there was any breach.
037_04 Irrelevant: Moore’s pleading never accused El-Rayes of exceeding authority or acting outside of his capacity as the Landlord’s agent: she alleged that El-Rayes is part of Ottawa’s Crime Syndicate, in her Motion materials, that there is no evidence that any landlord ever existed. |
038_01 Ms. Moore also advances causes of action against the Real Estate Agent grounded in intentional torts, including conversion, fraud, and malice.
038_01 Bald or vague assertions of intentional tortious conduct are insufficient to defeat a r. 21 motion; the pleading of intentional torts must be pleaded with “clarity and precision”: Ceballos v. DCL International Inc., at para. 1218; Lysko v. Braley, at para. 144.19 |
038_01 Moore also advanced negligent torts and unjust enrichment as someone disposed of approximately $500,000 in valued possessions while she was in zero position to do anything about it as was clearly stated in her pleading.
038_02 Again, Bell cherry-picked the sections from Moore’s Claim that could be easily dismissed without proper Discovery and ignored the sections that could stand any legitimate judicial review. Also, her assertions were neither “bald” nor “vague”. Obviously, scoundrels don’t tell you when and how they intend to rip one off: their targets learn of the scam after the fact. |
039_01 The necessary elements of a false representation of fact made by the Real Estate Agent to Ms. Moore and the knowledge of that representation to make out a claim for civil fraud have not been pleaded in the Claim.
The Claim does not plead the precise agreement amongst the alleged conspirators, a necessary element of the tort of civil conspiracy. It is plain and obvious that these claims against the Real Estate Agent cannot succeed. |
039_01 x |
040_01 With respect to the claim for unjust enrichment, there are no material facts pleaded that the Real Estate Agent was unjustly enriched, nor has Ms. Moore pleaded the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.
040_02 This claim against the Real Estate Agent cannot succeed. |
040_01 There is zero way for Moore to know which of the defendants were unjustly enriched nor by how much: only whoever sold Moore’s possessions while all relevant information was withheld would know the specifics.
040_02 False. The claim could succeed a judge who was not pro-organized crime presided and Discovery revealed that, for example, there never was any landlord and, for example, Stoll and El-Rayes simply shared the proceeds from selling Moore’s high-end property to the highest bidder. |
041_01 The Claim seeks pecuniary damages against the individual defendants due to the intentional infliction of emotional suffering, malice and/or negligent infliction of emotional suffering.
In Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed the three-part test for establishing intentional infliction of mental suffering: (i) the conduct must be flagrant and outrageous; (ii) the conduct must be calculated to harm the plaintiff; and (iii) the conduct must have caused the plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable illness.20 |
041_01 x |
042_01 In Merrifield, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s call for the creation of a tort of mental harassment.
The Court determined that it was neither necessary nor desirable at this stage to create a new tort of mental harassment, given the similarities between the proposed tort and the already existing tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering. The Court of Appeal noted that the test for the proposed tort of mental harassment was less onerous than the test for a claim for intentional infliction of mental stress because the former tort is negligence-based, while the latter has an element of intent: Merrifield, at para. 48. The proposed tort of harassment would require only outrageous conduct: Merrifield, at para. 47. |
042_01 x |
043_01 The Claim does not plead facts that constitute flagrant or outrageous conduct on the part of the Real Estate Agent.
043_02 The Claim does not allege that the conduct of the Real Estate Agent caused Ms. Moore to suffer a visible and provable illness; to the contrary, Ms. Moore pleads at para. 86 of the Claim that “the emotional suffering that has been endured by Moore due to the actions and inactions of the Defendants and the OPS is difficult to quantify.” These claims, too, cannot succeed. |
043_01 x
043_02 That Moore’s suffering following the Eviction Scam is beyond measure due to its irreparable effect on the physical and mental health of her and her children renders her claim impossible to succeed? Bell, are you a sociopath too? You cherry-picked para. 86 out of Moore’s entire section titled “Impact of the Collective Behaviour of the Defendants” at paras. 83-88.
|
044_01 In summary, the action against the Real Estate Agent is dismissed because the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action against him.
044_02 The action against the Real Estate Agent is also dismissed because it is statute barred. 044_03 I would also strike out the Claim against the Real Estate Agent because it discloses no reasonable cause of action against him. |
044_01 False. The LTB has zero jurisdiction over providing relief to a victim of an Eviction Scam of which she had no notice.
044_02 False. Moore was unaware that the Eviction Scam had occurred until May 2019 and her claim was originated in April 2019 044_03 False. Moore’s claim cleared suggested collusion amongst the defendants: Bell simply enjoys assisting scam artists to commit crimes and/or torts (not unlike the other judges listed at www.pfi.ROCKS/organized-crime/vis). |
10 2011 ONCA 728, 344 D.L.R. (4th) 332. 11 2008 ONCA 864, 93 O.R. (3d) 529. 12 2008 ONCA 277, 90 O.R. (3d) 384. 13 S.O. 2006, c. 17. 14 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, at s. 168(2). 15 (2005), 75 O.R. (3d) 383 (C.A.).16 2019 ONSC 6464. 16 2019 ONSC 6464. 17 2019 ONSC 7319.18 2018 ONCA 49. 18 2018 ONCA 49.19 (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 721 (C.A.). 20 2019 ONCA 205, 145 O.R. (3d) 494, rev’g 2017 ONSC 1333. |
— |
Omissions from “The Real Estate Agent” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
“The Landlord” || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
045_01 The Landlord also argues that the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over Ms. Moore’s claims against the Landlord and that the Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against him.
045_02 The Landlord adopts the Real Estate Agent’s submissions in relation to both issues. |
045_01 x
045_02 x |
046_01 My analysis of these issues as they apply to the Landlord is the same as my analysis in relation to the Real Estate Agent.
046_02 Therefore, for the reasons already given, the action against the Landlord is dismissed because the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action against him. 046_03 The Claim is also struck out against the Landlord because it discloses no reasonable cause of action against him. |
046_01 x
046_02 x
046_03 x |
Omissions from “The Landlord” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
“The Paralegal” || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
047_01 For the reasons already given, the action against the Paralegal is dismissed on the basis that the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action against him. | 047_01 x |
048_01 xThe Claim is also struck out against the Paralegal because it discloses no reasonable cause of action against him. In particular, I note that the Paralegal was acting for the Landlord in the proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Paralegal owed the Landlord duties of loyalty and confidentiality and was required to endeavour to obtain the benefit of every remedy authorized by law on his client’s behalf: Paralegal Rules of Conduct, r. 3.03 and 4.01.21 | 048_01 x |
049_01 However, a lawyer owes no duty of care to the party opposite in litigation: Davidoff v. Paderewski, at para. 22.22
049_02 Complaints related to an opposing lawyer’s allegedly unethical conduct during proceedings do not provide a basis for a cause of action: Powell v. Shirley, at para. 55.23. 049_03 There is no claim against a lawyer because they were the lawyer for the opposing party in litigation: Davidoff, at para. 22. 049_04 These principles logically extend to a licensed paralegal. |
049_01
049_02
049_03
049_04 |
050_01 I would also dismiss the action as against the Paralegal because it is frivolous and vexatious.
050_02 The Paralegal owed no duty of care to Ms. Moore and appears to have been dragged into this litigation for no reason other than his representation of the Landlord at the Landlord and Tenant Board hearing. 050_03 In addition, Ms. Moore filed a complaint with the Law Society of Ontario regarding the Paralegal. 050_04 The fact that a plaintiff has brought claims in court and before the Law Society against lawyers who acted opposite the plaintiff has been described as “one of the most telltale badges of a vexatious litigant”: Yae v. Park, at para. 17.24 050_05 Ms. Moore’s action against the Paralegal is frivolous and vexatious for the same reason. |
050_01
050_02
050_03
050_04
050_05 This qualifies as one count of Defamatory Libel, a violation of S. 300 of the Criminal Code of Canada. (Just part of the upcoming smear campaign to have Moore declared a vexatious litigant in order to protect the other 200+ little beasties listed at pfi.ROCKS/organized-crime/vis/ |
21 The Law Society of Ontario, Paralegal Rules of Conduct, Toronto: Law Society of Ontario, 2007. 22 2020 ONSC 1162. 23 2016 ONSC 3577. |
Omissions from “The Paralegal” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
“The Former Spouse” || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
051_01 The Former Spouse argues the following in support of his motion: (i) that the claim against him is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board; (ii) that the action does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against him; (iii) that the subject matter of the claim against him is the subject matter of another proceeding pending in Ontario; and (iv) that the action is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. |
007_01 Former Spouse, John Kiska, is a fraudster and cruel pathological liar who has knowingly, irreparably harmed Moore’s two children, Sean and Cate Kiska. Evidence of this is undeniably. His statements should be discounted to a value of ZERO. (link to John Kiska’s pageS) |
052_01 The Former Spouse’s involvement in the alleged eviction scam is set out at paras. 58 and 59 of the Claim: following Ms. Moore’s advice to her Former Spouse of her intention to have the contents of the Rental Property packed up and stored, he responded by telling her that he planned to buy the contents of her home unless she paid for them in full by May 16, 2019.
052_02 Ms. Moore pleads that her Former Spouse “went on to mock Moore, insult Moore and state that she could eventually purchase her possessions back from him.” 052_03 There is no allegation that the Former Spouse was ever in possession of Ms. Moore’s property. |
008_01 x
052_02 x
052_03 xThere is no way of Moore knowing whether or not Kiska was in possession of her stolen property; she did however, inform the court that Kiska stated “he had spoken to Stoll and that he planned to by the contents of her home unless she paid “them*” in full by May 16, 2019. *them = Crime Syndicate. Moore sending a bank draft to the unknown address where fictitious Allah (i.e. The Landlord”) allegedly lived would have merely resulted in additional theft … obviously. |
053_01 For reasons previously given, the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction regarding the eviction of Ms. Moore from the Rental Property.
053_02 The alleged eviction scam is the true substance of the dispute* between Ms. Moore and each of the individual defendants. 053_03 Accordingly, the action against the Former Spouse is dismissed under r. 21.01(3)(a). |
053_01 x
053_02 Ooops! Yo Bell! It looks like you can’t decide what the “true substance” of the dispute is; even though I laid it all out for you. Taxpayer-funded, court-enabled, organized crime. THAT is the nature of the dispute you POS. (If I were you, I’d turn myself in while you can: first in-best assigned.) 053_03 x *Ergo, the Civil court has jurisdiction and your ENTIRE decision is a piece of obvious garbage. |
054_01 x | 010_01 x |
055_01 x | 011_01 x |
056_01 x | 012_01 x |
057_01 x | 013_01 x |
Omissions from “The Former Spouse” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
“The Police” || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
007_01 x | 007_01 x |
008_01 x | 008_01 x |
009_01 x | 009_01 x |
010_01 x | 010_01 x |
011_01 x | 011_01 x |
012_01 x | 012_01 x |
013_01 x | 013_01 x |
Omissions from “The Police” Section
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
Bell’s Closing Remarks || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
Paragraph & Sentence (para y_z) | ERRORS |
---|---|
007_01 x | 007_01 x |
008_01 x | 008_01 x |
009_01 x | 009_01 x |
065_01 Ms. Moore has already made one attempt to amend with her delivery of the Claim. It is plain and obvious that the Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against any of the defendants. There is no basis to believe that Ms. Moore’s case against any of the defendants could be improved by further amendment. In these circumstances, leave to amend is refused. | 010_01 x |
066_01 Because I have dismissed the action as against all the individual defendants and I have struck out the Claim as against the Police, it is not necessary for me to address the alternative arguments raised by some of the defendants in relation to security for costs. | 011_01 x |
067_01 Ms. Moore’s action is dismissed as against the individual defendants. The Claim is also struck out in its entirety, without leave to amend. | 012_01 x |
068_01 In the event the parties are unable to agree on costs of the motions, they may make written submissions limited to a maximum of three pages. The defendants shall deliver their respective costs submissions by September 30, 2022. Ms. Moore shall deliver her responding submissions by October 14, 2022. If no submissions are received within this timeframe, the parties will be deemed to have settled the issue of costs as between themselves. | 013_01 x |
26 2018 ONCA 368. 27 2011 ONCA 274, 105 O.R. (3d) 81. 28 2018 ONSC 4799, 93 C.L.R. (4th) 24. |
013_01 x |
Omissions from Bell’s Closing Remarks
- Inclusion of significant information contained in ….:
- Inclusion of ____:
- ____ (insert link)
- ____ (insert link)
Costs sought from Co-defendants due September 30, 2022 || Link back to Ryan Bell Main Page
-
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x