CITATION: Olumide v. Metrolinx, 2014 ONSC 374
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 512/13
DATE: 20140116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
ADE OLUMIDE
Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (the “Crown”) AND METROLINX
Respondents
In Person
Domenico D. Polla, for the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario (the “Crown”)
Kaley M. Pulfer, for the Respondent, Metrolinx
HEARD at Toronto: January 16, 2014
KITELEY J. (orally)
[1] This is a motion for an order that (a) the applicant has public interest standing to bring the application for Judicial Review and (b) to consolidate this application with the application he commenced in the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 14. The motion is opposed by counsel for the respondents.
[2] The requirements or factors relevant to the application for public interest standing are as follows: (1) whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue; (2) whether the party bringing the case has a real stake in the proceedings or is engaged with the issues that it raises; (3) whether the proposed suit is, in all the circumstances and in light of a number of considerations, a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court. [Attorney General of Canada v. Downtown Eastside] 2012 SCC 45.
[3] The motion for public interest standing is dismissed for these reasons:
The respondents have a motion already returnable January 27, 2014 in which they seek to obtain an order striking the notice of application because it fails to disclose a cause of action. That motion must proceed as a priority because it constitutes a challenge to the first factor. The outcome of that motion will determine whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue.
Today, Mr. Olumide handed up 3 pieces of paper designed to show that he pays property taxes in Toronto and income taxes in Ontario. Those are designed to demonstrate the second factor, namely, that he has a serious stake in the proceedings. Those 3 documents are not evidence. I will leave them in the Court file but I will not rely on them.
It is impossible to assess the third factor on standing on this record and in advance of the motion to strike.
[4] The motion to consolidate this application in the Divisional Court with the application in the Superior Court #13-00485236 is dismissed for these reasons:
The motion to strike scheduled for January 27, 2014 has priority. If this application is struck, there will be nothing to consolidate.
The Divisional Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the motion to consolidate. During submissions, Mr. Olumide said he had arranged to attend in the Superior Court tomorrow to review his motion to consolidate if he failed today. I am directly him not to pursue that course of action because of the first reason for dismissing the motion to consolidate, namely, the pending motion to stay.
COSTS
[5] Counsel for the respondents each ask for costs in the amount of $1,790.15. The applicant takes the position that there should be no costs because this is public interest litigation and if I order costs it will be a barrier to the continuation of the application.
[6] The motion was brought and was not successful. I agree that the respondents should recover costs each in the amount of $1,000.
[7] This is not yet public interest litigation. Until the applicant is granted standing, it is ordinary litigation. Whether he is granted such standing will not be decided today. As indicated above, the motion to strike returnable January 27, 2014 is the priority. The costs I order will not be an obstacle to that motion.
ORDER TO GO
Dismiss the motion for public interest standing.
Dismiss the motion for consolidation.
The motion for public interest standing may be re-started on fresh material only after the determination of the motion to strike currently set for January 27, 2014.
The applicant shall pay costs to each respondent in the amount of $1,000, each of which is payable no later than 30 days after the decision in the motion to strike scheduled for January 27, 2014.
KITELEY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2014
Date of Release: January 24, 2014
CITATION: Olumide v. Metrolinx, 2014 ONSC 374
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 512/13
DATE: 20140116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY J.
BETWEEN:
ADE OLUMIDE
Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (the “Crown”) AND METROLINX
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KITELEY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2014
Date of Release: January 24, 2014