COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Corsi v. Skanes, 2018 ONCA 661
DATE: 20180724
DOCKET: C64935
Hoy A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Frankie Paul Corsi
Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
Sean J. Skanes (Badge #1130), York Regional Police and
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Defendants (Respondents)
Frankie Paul Corsi, acting in person
Suhaib Ibrahim, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: July 17, 2018
On appeal from the decision of Justice J. Di Luca of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 25, 2017.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The appellant, Frankie Paul Corsi, appeals the motion judge’s order, dismissing his action under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as being frivolous and vexatious.
[2] The appellant was charged under ss. 172 and 128 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). In accordance with the Act, his licence and vehicle were seized for seven days.
[3] The appellant subsequently issued a statement of claim seeking $75,000 in punitive damages and $2,100 in travel expenses against the respondents, Police Constable Skanes, the York Regional Police, and her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario. He alleged that the seizure of the vehicle he was driving amounted to theft because it was done without his consent or court order.
[4] The motion judge held that the Act authorizes officers to seize vehicles when they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that certain offences –including “stunt driving” contrary to s. 172(1) of the Act – had been committed. He concluded that there was no legal merit to the appellant’s claim and dismissed it.
[5] The appellant essentially argues that the motion judge erred in concluding there was no legal merit to his claim. He submits that the seizure of the vehicle violated his rights under s. 8 of the Charter, and what he says was his right to be heard and to an appeal, before seizure. He says that because he did not own the vehicle, the seizure violated the property rights of the owner.
[6] We reject these arguments. It was open to the motion judge to conclude that his claim, on its face, was incapable of success and, as such, the action should not continue. Further, the appellant did not challenge the constitutionality of s. 172 of the Act in his statement of claim. In any event, this court has concluded that s. 172 is constitutional: see R. v. Raham (2010), 99 O.R. (3d) 241.
[7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents shall be entitled to their costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $1,000, inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T.
“Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.”
“K.M. van Rensburg J.A.”
“G. Pardu J.A.”