Court File and Parties
CITATION: Visic v. University of Windsor, 2011 ONSC 1823
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 449/10
DATE: 20110322
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, LEDERER AND LAUWERS JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANICA VISIC Appellant (Plaintiff)
– and –
UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR, MARY GOLD, ROSS PAUL, BRIAN MAZER Respondents (Defendants)
Counsel:
In Person
Michael A. Wills and Jennifer Astrologo, for the Respondents (Defendants)
HEARD at Toronto: March 22, 2011
Oral Reasons for Judgment
LEDERER J. (orally)
[1] This was a motion to appeal two orders of D. Wilson J., one dated July 22, 2010 and the other dated August 12, 2010.
[2] On the motions heard by D. Wilson J., Ms. Visic sought various forms of relief. It was apparent to the Judge that it would not be possible to consider all of the relief sought in the time that had been set aside. The Judge only considered whether the civil action commenced by Ms. Visic should be discontinued. Ms. Visic sought not simply to discontinue, she wished the Court to impose various extraordinary conditions. If the conditions were not met, the discontinuance would not be effective and the action revived.
[3] In her Orders, D. Wilson J. adjourned the motion for a discontinuance sine die pending a determination by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal as to whether it had jurisdiction to continue with the matter before it. D. Wilson J. awarded costs against Ms. Visic in the amount of $2,500.00.
[4] Ms. Visic was advised at the outset that these were both interlocutory orders and that accordingly, leave is required pursuant to s.19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act. Leave had not been applied for and the issue was not raised in the factum of the respondent.
[5] Ms. Visic requested that this panel hear the motion for leave and that if leave was granted, that this panel proceed to hear the merits of the appeal. Counsel for the respondent consented.
[6] Ms. Visic made submissions that these circumstances satisfied the requirements of both Rule 62.02(4)(a) and (b). In respect of Rule 62.02(4)(a), she placed before the Court three cases which had allowed for the discontinuance of an action. These she said conflict with the decision of D. Wilson J. The conflict under the Rule must be as to a legal principle. There is no conflict of that sort present here. Thus, the application fails under subparagraph (a).
[7] As for Rule 62.02(4)(b), there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of D. Wilson J. Her determination to adjourn the motion sine die was sensitive to Ms. Visic’s circumstances. It left the question of whether the civil action should proceed to await the results of the matter before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. This, as it stands, is a procedural order which does not raise an issue of importance. Thus, the motion fails under subparagraph (b).
[8] The motion for leave is dismissed.
FERRIER J.
[9] Costs to the respondents fixed at $1,000.00.
FERRIER J.
LEDERER J.
LAUWERS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 22, 2011
Date of Release: March 28, 2011
CITATION: Visic v. University of Windsor, 2011 ONSC 1823
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 449/10
DATE: 20110322
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, LEDERER AND LAUWERS JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANICA VISIC Appellant (Plaintiff)
– and –
UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR, MARY GOLD, ROSS PAUL, BRIAN MAZER Respondents (Defendants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 22, 2011
Date of Release: March 28, 2011