Eli Theodore Fellman

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous.

The plaintiff, self-represented, failed to file written submissions in response to the court's notice.

The court dismissed the action, finding it frivolous on its face.

The action challenged a decision of an adjudicator at the Landlord Tenant Tribunal, alleging the decision was void and unlawful.

The court found the action lacked legal basis and merit, noting that the adjudicator was protected by adjudicative immunity and that any challenges to the decision should be raised on appeal to the Divisional Court, not in a free-standing civil action.

The court, upon referral from the registrar's office following a written request from the defendant's counsel, reviewed the statement of claim and determined that it may be frivolous and vexatious.

The court directed the registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the action.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The registrar was directed to accept no further filings except the plaintiff's written submissions in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3).

The court retained seizin of the matter.

The plaintiff, Jean-Marie Dixon, sought to conduct Rule 39.03 examinations of three witnesses (Registrar of HRTO, former ALOC president, and Crown counsel) in preparation for a jurisdiction motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (HMK).

HMK, the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) each moved to quash the respective summonses.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's preliminary motion to strike portions of HMK's material.

The court granted all motions to quash, finding that the evidence sought was not relevant to the jurisdiction motion, was protected by statutory privilege (for HRTO Registrar) or solicitor-client privilege (for Crown counsel), or constituted an abuse of process as a fishing expedition for the underlying claim's merits.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the test for bad faith under s. 57(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) and the potential liability of purchasers in "own use" evictions.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (Board) and Divisional Court had erred by unduly narrowing the bad faith assessment to the landlord's knowledge at the time of notice and by failing to consider the purchaser's good faith.

The Court held that the Board must consider all relevant evidence, including events after the notice, and assess the good faith of both the landlord and the purchaser.

The appeal was granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination.