COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
GABOR L. ZSOLDOS (Plaintiff/Appellant) – and – ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS, THE ASSOCIATION’S COMPLAINTS, PRACTICE, DISCIPLINE COMMITTEES ITS COUNCIL AND ITS INSURER, THE PRO-DEMNITY COMPANY, HILLEL ROEBUCK, BRIAN WATKINSON, DAVID CROFT AND RANDY ROBERTS (Defendants/Respondents)
BEFORE:
LABROSSE, DOHERTY and GOUDGE JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Gabor L. Zsoldos
in person
P. John Brunner
for the respondents
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
November 20, 2006
On appeal from the judgment of Justice H.J.W. Seigel of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 1, 2005.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1By letter dated November 16, 2006, the appellant requested that a court reporter be present to produce a record of the proceedings. No reasons were given for the request and it was refused.
2The appellant appeals the judgment dismissing, on a motion for summary judgment, his action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy to injure, intentional infliction of mental suffering and inducing breach of contract, arising out of his convictions for professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects.
3The appellant was found guilty of professional misconduct on October 10, 1993 and again on April 8, 1998 for failing to comply with the decision and order of October 10, 1993. His licence and certificate of practice were suspended until he complied with the first decision and other conditions. His appeal to the Divisional Court from the 1998 decision, a motion to extend leave to appeal to this Court and a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada were all dismissed.
4The motion judge found that there was no genuine issue for trial with respect to the claims in the action and accordingly dismissed this action with costs.
5The appellant’s main argument before us was that under the terms of the by-laws, his licence was automatically suspended when he failed to pay his annual fees and insurance levies. Assuming that the appellant’s interpretation of the by-laws is correct, section 28 of the Architects Act, the provisions relied upon by the motion judge, requires notice of termination. The by-laws cannot supersede the terms of the Act. The motion judge properly interpreted the provisions of the Act.
6As to the other issues raised by the appellant, we agree with the motion judge that no issues for trial are raised with respect to any of the claims asserted by the appellant and we agree with his disposition of the motion.
7By way of cross-motion, the respondents sought an order staying and dismissing this action by reason of the appellant’s failure to comply with numerous prior court orders exceeding $200,000.00. The motion judge concluded that it was not necessary to deal with this alternative remedy because of his conclusion on the merit of the action. We agree.
8The appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.
“J.M. Labrosse J.A.”
“Doherty J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”