Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2024-04-09 Docket: M54666, M54892 & M54916

Before: Brown J.A.

Docket: M54666 & M54892

Between: Glenn Bogue, Moving Party and The Law Society of Ontario, Responding Party

Docket: M54916

Between: Glenn Bogue, Moving Party and Colin Bogue, Responding Party

Counsel: Glenn Bogue, acting in person Joshua Elcombe, for the respondent Law Society of Ontario Liza Saad, for the respondent Colin Bogue

Directions given to Registrar: April 9, 2024

Directions

Overview

[1] This endorsement contains my directions to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in response to his request for guidance on how to deal with a flurry of procedural panel review motions filed by the self-represented litigant, Glenn Bogue (aka Spirit Warrior), a lawyer whose licence was suspended by the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) in 2019.

The appeal proceeding regarding the Law Society of Ontario

[2] The efforts by Mr. Bogue to review and set aside his suspension are detailed in the endorsement of D.L. Corbett J. dated June 9, 2023: 2023 ONSC 3654. By that decision, Corbett J., as a single judge of the Divisional Court, dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure Mr. Bogue’s appeal to the Divisional Court from the LSO suspension order as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process (the “Corbett Order”). In his endorsement, Corbett J. pointed out that in Tran v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2023 ONSC 3207, the Divisional Court stated that a decision under r. 2.1.01 dismissing an appeal is a final disposition from the Divisional Court, which can be appealed, with leave, to the Court of Appeal for Ontario pursuant to s. 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”).

[3] In October 2023, Mr. Bogue moved before this Court for an order that he could appeal the Corbett Order as of right, without the need to seek and obtain leave of this Court.

[4] That motion was heard by Paciocco J.A. who, by order dated October 17, 2023, dismissed the motion on the basis that Mr. Bogue required leave from a three-judge panel to appeal the Corbett Order (the “Paciocco Order”).

[5] By notice of motion filed November 7, 2023, Mr. Bogue sought a review of the Paciocco Order (M54666). Panel review motions are governed by s. 7(5) of the CJA, which states: “A panel of the Court of Appeal may, on motion, set aside or vary the decision of a judge who hears and determines a motion.”

[6] By email from court staff dated October 25, 2023, the parties to the panel review motion were informed that a r. 2.1.02 process would not be initiated at that time for the motion. Instead, the parties were “advised to please follow the normal process for a panel review motion.”

[7] Mr. Bogue did not follow the normal review process for a panel review motion.

[8] Mr. Bogue was required to serve and file his motion record and factum within 30 days of filing the notice of motion: r. 61.16(4)(a). By email dated October 27, 2023, counsel for the LSO consented to extend that filing deadline to December 11, 2023. Mr. Bogue did not file a motion record and factum within the extended filing period.

[9] Instead, by notice of motion filed February 8, 2024, Mr. Bogue moved before a single judge of this Court for a variety of orders, including an order to provide “partial transcripts of the Paciocco J hearing” (M54851). A full description of the relief Mr. Bogue requested can be found in the endorsement of Hourigan J.A. dated February 21, 2024, dismissing the motion (the “Hourigan Order”). Hourigan J.A. was not satisfied that the transcripts of the hearing before Paciocco J.A. were relevant to the panel review motion. The Hourigan Order also ordered Mr. Bogue to perfect his panel review motion by March 22, 2024.

[10] To date, Mr. Bogue has not perfected his panel review motion. Instead, he has continued to pursue the tactic of seeking panel reviews of procedural orders made by a single judge.

[11] One such panel review motion was filed on February 28, 2024 (subsequently amended) in the LSO matter. The motion sought a panel review of the Hourigan Order (M54892).

The appeal proceeding in the power of attorney litigation

[12] The other panel review motion was brought in a second piece of litigation Mr. Bogue wished to bring before this Court. Mr. Bogue and his brother, Colin Bogue, are co-attorneys for the property of their mother, who is incapable. A proceeding regarding the administration of the mother’s property was initiated in the Superior Court of Justice: CV-22-00687532ES. Gilmore J. heard competing motions brought by the brothers in that proceeding. By order dated March 13, 2023, Gilmore J. dismissed Glenn Bogue’s motion and granted Colin Bogue’s motion: 2023 ONSC 1642.

[13] Mr. Bogue did not initiate an appeal from the order of Gilmore J. within the prescribed time to appeal.

[14] On March 4, 2024, Thorburn J.A. heard Mr. Bogue’s motion for leave to file a notice of appeal from the order of Gilmore J. (COA-24-OM-0048). Mr. Bogue was granted an extension of time until March 20, 2024, to file his materials appealing the cost order Gilmore J. made against him personally.

[15] Mr. Bogue has not filed such materials.

[16] Instead, on March 7, 2024, he filed a notice of motion seeking a panel review of the Thorburn Order (M54916).

[17] Mr. Bogue has also emailed the court office a motion record in which he seeks an order joining his requested reviews of the Hourigan Order and Thorburn Order, together with other relief.

[18] I should note that Mr. Bogue has been granted fee waivers for the steps that he has taken in this Court.

Analysis and directions

[19] Mr. Bogue was informed by Corbett J. of the leave to appeal procedure applicable to seek this Court’s review of the Corbett Order. Instead of following that procedure, Mr. Bogue took the position that he was entitled as of right to appeal that order, a position rejected by Paciocco J.A. Mr. Bogue has not complied with the extended deadlines granted to him to perfect his panel review motion of the Paciocco Order.

[20] In the power of attorney litigation, Mr. Bogue was granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the cost order of Gilmore J. He did not take advantage of the extension he was granted.

[21] As a result, at the present time Mr. Bogue does not have any appeal proceeding extant in this Court.

[22] Instead of pursuing or attempting to pursue his grounds of appeal on their merits, Mr. Bogue has resorted to panel review motions on procedural, not substantive, issues.

[23] That is not a proper use of the panel review motion procedure available under s. 7(5) of the CJA.

[24] Whatever purpose the crafters of CJA s. 7(5) may have intended for panel review motions to serve, such motions cannot function as an endless cycle of "appeals within an appeal", with the small wheels of procedural disputes unnecessarily absorbing time that should more properly be spent by appeal judges dealing with the larger wheel of the merits of the appeal proper. There is not enough judicial time available to allow the appellate process to get side-tracked in that fashion. The consequence of an unrestrained ability to "appeal" an order of a single judge of this Court under the guise of a "panel review motion" would be to deflect judicial time away from its core purpose, which is to review orders or judgments made by lower courts or tribunals.

[25] Those who seek to invoke the appellate review powers of this Court are obliged to focus their efforts on dealing with the merits of their appeal or request for leave to appeal. They are not entitled to initiate a cycle of procedural motions and panel review motions, while ignoring their obligations to proceed with their appeal or request for leave to appeal in an expeditious fashion.

[26] The record discloses that Mr. Bogue has ignored that obligation.

[27] As a result, I direct the Registrar of this Court to take the following steps:

• The Registrar shall initiate this Court’s standard process under r. 2.1.02 in respect of Mr. Bogue’s panel review motions of the Paciocco, Hourigan, and Thorburn Orders;
• The Registrar shall inform the parties that they must strictly comply with the time periods for such a review, as set out in r. 2.1.01(3);
• Upon the expiry of those time periods, regardless of whether materials have been filed by all of the parties, the Registrar shall place the materials received before one panel to consider whether orders should be issued pursuant to r. 2.1.02(1) dismissing the panel review motions of the Paciocco, Hourigan, and Thorburn Orders;
• At the same time as giving notice regarding the r. 2.1.02 process, the Registrar shall inform Mr. Bogue that pursuant to s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.6, the Court is proposing to revoke existing fee waivers he has been granted and restrict the granting of any further fee waivers. The Registrar shall further inform Mr. Bogue that he may file written submissions limited to 10 pages within 15 days of the notice, in accordance with s. 4.10(3) and (4) of the Administration of Justice Act; and
• Until such time as the panel determines whether to dismiss under r. 2.1.02 the panel review motions of the Paciocco, Hourigan, and Thorburn Orders, I direct that the Court staff not accept from Mr. Bogue any materials that he seeks to file, including materials in the nature of an originating motion, other than his submissions on whether orders should be made under r. 2.1.02 and s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act. This is a temporary order, which will be in place only until the panel disposes of the r. 2.1.02 matters. I make this temporary order in the exercise of my implicit powers that derive from the authority of this Court, and its judges, to control its own process: R. v. Anderson, 2014 SCC 41, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 167, at para. 58.

“David Brown J.A.”