Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 537/13
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, SACHS AND EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
GANNA BEGMAN Plaintiff (Appellant/Moving Party)
– and –
VLADEK MEJERY Defendant (Respondent/Responding Party)
COUNSEL:
In Person
Eric S. Baum, for the Defendant (Respondent/Responding Party)
HEARD at Toronto: March 19, 2014
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
Background
1The appellant moves before us under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review the order of Lederman J. dated February 5, 2014. In that order Lederman J. dismissed the appellant’s motion to waive the fee for the transcript required for her appeal of a decision of Deputy Judge Bay of the Small Claims Court. Justice Lederman held that he lacked the authority for such an order, although he extended the time for ordering the transcript to March 31, 2014.
2The appellant requests an order that she be permitted to obtain the transcript for free. Alternatively, she seeks an order permitting her to continue her appeal without the transcript or an order that the respondent bear the costs of ordering the transcript.
3Justice Lederman dismissed the motion, holding that he lacked the authority to waive the fee for transcripts under the Administration of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.6 (the “AJA”). He cited Ibrahim v. Canadian Tire, in which Kiteley J. held that she lacked the authority to order a fee waiver for transcripts. Justice Lederman did not address the appellant’s alternative request for relief, although he extended the time for the appellant to order the transcript.
Analysis
4In our view, Lederman J. was correct when he found that he lacked the authority to waive the fee. Section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 2/05 (Fee Waiver), enacted under the AJA, precludes the waiver of fees for transcripts.
5With respect to the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed without a transcript, this is an appeal where the appellant’s allegations of judicial error are largely, if not exclusively, fact and credibility driven. In such circumstances, a transcript will be necessary for the appeal: see McDowell v. Barker, [2011] O.J. No. 5035 (C.A.).
6There is also no reason why the respondent should be ordered to pay for the transcript. Such a request is essentially a request for interim disbursements or costs and the appellant has not demonstrated that her case constitutes the “rare and exceptional” circumstance in which such an order is appropriate.
7In particular, there is no evidence that the issues raised transcend the individual interests of the appellant or are of public importance: see British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371 at para. 40.
Disposition
8For these reasons the motion is dismissed.
ASTON J.
9For oral reasons given by Sachs J. on behalf of the panel, this motion is dismissed. I have added to the endorsement, the moving party is to pay $500 in costs, if demanded.
SACHS J.
ASTON J.
EDWARDS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 19, 2014
Date of Release: March 25, 2014
CITATION: Begman v. Mejery, 2014 ONSC 1794
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 537/13
DATE: 20140319
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, SACHS AND EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
GANNA BEGMAN Plaintiff (Appellant/Moving Party)
– and –
VLADEK MEJERY Defendant (Respondent/Responding Party)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 19, 2014
Date of Release: March 25, 2014