COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Alexander v. Longo Brothers Fruit Market Inc., 2020 ONCA 590

DATE: 20200918

DOCKET: C67912

Gillese, Lauwers and Benotto JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Keith Alexander

Appellant

and

Longo Brothers Fruit Market Inc., Anthony Longo and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Respondents

Keith E. Alexander, acting in person

Paul Wearing, for the respondents Longo Brothers Fruit Market Inc. and Anthony Longo

Trevor Guy, for Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Heard: September 10, 2020, by video conference

On appeal from the order of Justice Andrew A. Sanfilippo of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 18, 2019, with reasons reported at 2019 ONSC 7399.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant’s application against Longo Brothers Fruit Market and Anthony Longo (collectively Longos) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) was dismissed pursuant to rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. He now appeals the order dismissing his claim because the court did not request submissions from him.[^1]

[2] The appellant made a complaint to the HRTO against Longos in July 2014. He also brought civil action against Longos seeking damages. At his request, the HRTO deferred the complaint process until his civil action was completed. The civil action was settled in 2017. The terms of the settlement included the appellant’s agreement not to pursue further claims against Longos. However, in October 2019, the appellant filed a Notice of Application with the Superior Court of Justice against both Longos and the HRTO claiming damages because Longos did not respond to his complaint to the HRTO. Meanwhile, the HRTO set a preliminary hearing date to discuss the next steps. The appellant did not attend the preliminary hearing and the HRTO application was dismissed as abandoned.

[3] Longos and the HRTO brought a motion to the Registrar seeking dismissal of the Superior Court application. The Registrar referred the matter to the motion judge who dismissed the application. The motion judge held that that the action was frivolous, and that it lacked any legal basis or merit. Most broadly construed, it sought damages against Longos for failure to respond to the complaint before the HRTO. The appellant did not plead a cause of action against either the HRTO or Longos. Nor did he plead any remedy against the HRTO.

[4] Rule 2.1.01(3) provides the motion judge with discretion to dismiss a claim without requesting submissions. The motion judge made no error in exercising his discretion not to request submissions. Rule 2.1 is a summary procedure to deal with cases that are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. As the motion judge stated:

Read generously and liberally, the Notice of Application does not plead a cause of action against either the HRTO or against the Longo Respondents. At its highest, Mr. Alexander is purporting to seek in this Court a remedy that flows from a matter pending before the HRTO.

[5] We agree with the motion judge’s conclusion.

[6] The appeal is dismissed without costs.

[7] Approval of the draft order by the appellant is dispensed with.

“Eileen E. Gillese J.A.”

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

[^1]: In written and oral submissions the appellant did not pursue additional grounds of appeal, none of which we would give effect to.