Chijindu v. Public Guardian and Trustee, 2026 ONCA 513

REASONS FOR DECISION

1The appellants appeal from the case conference judge’s dismissal of the appellants’ action against the Public Guardian and Trustee because it was a nullity, without prejudice to the appellants bringing an action against His Majesty the King in right of Ontario (“Ontario”). They say she had no jurisdiction to make the order.

2There is no basis to interfere with the case conference judge’s order. We agree that the appellants’ action was a nullity because: 1) there was no pleading of bad faith against the PGT, and the PGT therefore had immunity from liability; r2) this action should therefore have been brought against Ontario; and 3) the requisite 60-day statutory notice was not given.

3The appellants do not take issue with the case conference judge’s decision that the action was a nullity. They assert that the case conference judge erred because she determined the subject matter of the action on the merits, which prejudices them in the second action. We disagree. The case conference judge made the order dismissing the action because it was a nullity, without prejudice to the appellants starting a new action against Ontario. She had the jurisdiction to make this order. She made no decision on the merits of the action which remain to be determined in the new action that the appellants have already started against Ontario.

4The appeal is therefore dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs from the appellants in the all-inclusive, agreed upon amount of $1,500.