George Seredy v. RBC Royal Bank of Canada, 2011 ONSC 6562

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Seredy v. RBC Royal Bank of Canada, 2011 ONSC 6562

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-11-02-00

DATE: 20111207

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: George Seredy

Plaintiff/Appellant

AND:

RBC Royal Bank of Canada, Greg Puden, and Aklima Rojan

Defendants, Respondents

BEFORE: Justices Matlow, Charbonneau, Nadeau

COUNSEL: Plaintiff /Appellant appeared in person

Gregory W. Bowden for the Defendants/Respondents

HEARD: October 21, 2011 at Brampton

Endorsement

MATLOW, J.:

1At the commencement of this appeal the members of this panel raised the issue of our jurisdiction to hear the appeal and we invited submissions from the parties who had not considered the issue until it was raised by us. After hearing their submissions we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction and we transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and stated that we would give written reasons for doing so. What follows are those reasons.

2In the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had maliciously slandered him and he claimed damages and other relief against them. However, the plaintiff failed to set out the amount of his claim in the statement of claim as required by rule 25.06 (9).

3At the conclusion of the presentation of the plaintiff’s case to the court composed of a judge and jury, the trial judge granted a non-suit motion made by the defendants and dismissed the action.

4In the circumstances of this case, the source of our jurisdiction to hear the appeal must be found, if at all, in sections 19(1)(a) and 19(1.2)(c) or (d) of the Courts of Justice Act which provide for an appeal to the Divisional Court from a final judgment dismissing a claim for an amount that is not more than $50,000, exclusive of costs.

5Because of the plaintiff’s failure to state the amount of his claim in the statement of claim, it was impossible for us to determine that his claim did not exceed this monetary limit. As a result, we were unable to determine that this court had jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Matlow, J.

Charbonneau, J.

Nadeau, J.