COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HEM RAMLALL, B.A., MD. DOHS. (Plaintiff/Applicant) v. JAY S. KEYSTONE, M.D., JASON WARREN BERTRAM PRICE, M.D., GINA (ALLISON) DRESSLER (KAY) (Manager, Cristall Opticians), OXFORD PROPERTIES GROUP INC./OXFORD PROPERTIES CANADA LIMITED, THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO and HEALTH PROFESSIONS BOARD/HEALTH BOARDS SECRETARIAT (HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL & REVIEW BOARD) (Defendants/Respondents)
BEFORE: O’CONNOR A.C.J.O., LASKIN and BORINS JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Hem Ramlall appearing in person
Michael Kealy, for Jay Keystone
Matthew Peter Sammon for Price Bertram and Jason Warren
Barry Wadsworth for Health Professions Board for the respondents
HEARD: November 18, 2002
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The applicant has served and filed a notice motion to review the order of Catzman J.A. dated March 27, 2000 refusing leave to extend the time for bringing this appeal. The applicant has not taken any steps to perfect the motion. On October 22, 2002, the Appeal Scheduling Unit of this Court sent letters to the parties to the motion indicating that the matter had been scheduled for hearing on November 18, 2002. The letters also stated that the merits of the motion would not be argued on November 18, but that the Court may dismiss the motion as abandoned, schedule it for full hearing or make such other order as is appropriate.
2On November 18, 2002, the applicant and three counsel representing the respondents appeared and made submissions The applicant asked for more time to perfect and the respondents, citing a long history of delay, asked that the motion be dismissed. None of the parties filed any material to support their positions.
3Despite having serious concerns about the delay in perfecting the motion, we are not prepared to dismiss the motion at this point for two reasons. First, the Rules do not provide for time limits within which to perfect a motion for review of a single judge’s order. Although the court has an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss for undue delay, we note that the applicant is unrepresented and we are, therefore, hesitant at this point to do so. In addition, we note that the respondents did not bring a motion to dismiss for failure to perfect. Had they done so, we would have had proper motion material addressing the relevant issues.
4Accordingly, we direct that the motion to review the order of Catzman J.A. be set for hearing on February 5, 2003. We direct that the applicant perfect the motion by January 6, 2003 and that the respondents file any responding material by January 20, 2003.
5Costs of the appearance on November 18, 2002 are reserved to the panel hearing the motion.
“Dennis O’Connor A.C.J.O.”
“John Laskin J.A.”
“S. Borins J.A.”