Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 20240808 Docket: COA-23-CV-0872
Before: Rouleau, Benotto and Thorburn JJ.A.
Between:
Nathalie Xian Yi Yan Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
Joanne Elizabeth Pritchard-Sobhani, Xian Min Yu, Iftikhar Choudry, Deborah Sinnatamby, Jin Qi Zeng, Ming Cha, Christine Nicole Lang, Ann Zeng, Sean Cassman, Mohan Cappuccino, Ivy Ning, Victor Wu, Peral Hung, Tiffany Szeto, Ryan Chu, Cathy Yang, Francesco Ortale, Rebecca Catherine Durcan, College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario (CTCMPAO) Defendants (Respondents)
Counsel: Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, acting in person Celine Zhen, for the respondents Joanne Elizabeth Pritchard-Sobhani, Xian Min Yu, Iftikhar Choudry, Deborah Sinnatamby, Jin Qi Zeng, Ming Cha, Christine Nicole Lang, Ann Zeng, Sean Cassman, Mohan Cappuccino, Ivy Ning, Victor Wu, Pearl Hung, Tiffany Szeto, Ryan Chu, Cathy Yang, Francesco Ortale and College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario (CTCMPAO) Taylor Bain, for the respondent Rebecca Catherine Durcan
Heard: June 17, 2024
On appeal from the order of Justice Loretta P. Merritt of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 17, 2023.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Background
The appellant’s action against the respondents was dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. She appeals on the basis that the decision was made without a “substantial” motion record and that the decision should have been stayed.
2The appellant was registered with the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario (“the College”.) The College found that she had committed professional misconduct and suspended her license for 10 months. Her appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed. Her motion for leave to appeal to this court was also dismissed.
3The appellant then issued a Statement of Claim against the College, and various persons who hold positions within it, claiming defamation. She also brought an action against counsel for the College, alleging professional misconduct.
4The respondents sought a dismissal of the action under r. 2.1.01. The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that it amounted to a collateral attack on the College’s decision to revoke the appellant’s license and, with respect to the College’s counsel, that the Law Society, not the court, had jurisdiction with respect to professional misconduct matters.
[5]
Analysis
The appellant submits that the motion judge erred in dismissing the action without “substantial support” and this did not afford her an opportunity to explain why her claims should not be dismissed.
6We do not accept this submission. Rule 2.1.01(3) gives the court authority to stay or dismiss an action without written submissions: Amikwabi v. Pope Francis, 2022 ONCA 236, at para. 3. Because the claim, on its face was frivolous and devoid of merit, written submissions would not have changed the result.
7The appellant further alleges that the decision to suspend her should have been stayed pending appeal. She relies on r. 63.01(1). The appellant has misread the rule, which only applies to a payment of money. The rule provides:
The delivery of a notice of appeal from an interlocutory or final order stays, until the disposition of the appeal, any provision of the order for the payment of money, except a provision that awards support or enforces a support order. [Emphasis added].
8We therefore do not accept this submission.
[9]
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent Rebecca Catherine Durcan in the amount of $5,000 and to the College in the amount of $2,000, all inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”
“M.L. Benotto J.A.”
“Thorburn J.A.”