CITATION: Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 ONSC 5873

COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-268

DATE: 20150922

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

B E T W E E N:

ROBERT BILICH

Mr Bilich, self-represented

Appellant/Moving Party

• and -

TORONTO POLICE SERVICES

Michael C. Smith and Kathryn Kirkpatrick,

BOARD, WILLIAM BLAIR, MARK

for the Respondents

PUGASH, REUBEN STROBLE, BLAKE

SHREVE, SUZANNE PINTO, STEPHEN

RUFFINO, IAN SAPSFORD, CANDY

GRAHAM, VICTORIA BALICE and

WENDY DRUMMOND

Defendants/Responding Parties

READ at Toronto: September 22, 2015

DECISION

D.L. Corbett J.:

1This is a motion in writing for leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision of Myers J., staying the plaintiff’s action for non-payment of costs orders and related relief.

2The outstanding costs totalled $6,102.97 at the time of the motion before Myers J., who awarded modest additional costs of $1,000 against Mr Bilich for the motion before him. So the total is now $7,102.97.

3The plaintiff initially brought an appeal of the impugned order to the Court of Appeal. That court quashed the appeal on the basis that the impugned order is interlocutory, and that any appeal had to be brought to the Divisional Court with leave. The plaintiff then delayed three months before bringing this motion for leave to appeal, well outside the deadline for seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory order. No reasonable explanation has been offered by Mr Bilich for his delay after receiving the decision of the Court of Appeal.

4This case has been characterized by long delays by the plaintiff with the result that the case is not beyond the pleadings stage some six years after it was commenced. I would not ordinarily exercise my discretion to extend the time to move for leave to appeal in these circumstances. However, the merits of the leave motion are addressed fully in the materials before me, and I prefer to rest my decision on the merits of the motion for leave to appeal.

5There is utterly no merit in this motion for leave to appeal. Given his litigation conduct to date, Mr Bilich should not be permitted to put the defendants to further legal expense if he will not pay costs awarded against him. In short I agree with the decision of Myers J. and see no reason to doubt its correctness. There are no decisions conflicting with the decision of Myers J., which is fact-specific to this case.

6The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed.

7Mr Bilich also seeks leave to appeal the costs order of Myers J. There is no error of principle in the costs award. Leave to appeal it is denied.

8Mr Bilich seeks other relief in his motion that is not properly brought before the Divisional Court. He may not bring a motion for this relief while the stay order of Myers J. is in place in any event. That aspect of the motion is dismissed without prejudice to its being renewed in civil motions court if the stay of proceedings is lifted and the action continues.

9The motion was so manifestly without merit that a costs sanction is warranted. The materials filed by Mr Bilich were grossly excessive and focused inappropriately on the merits of past decisions, the long history of the case and its underlying merits, rather than the issues addressed on the motion before Myers J. This put the respondents to the needless expense of digesting all those materials and responding to them.

10Costs of the motion for leave to appeal payable by Mr Bilich to the defendants fixed at $8,000, inclusive, payable within thirty days.

11Myers J. commented on a meritless appeal brought by Mr Bilich from the order of Frank J. I have commented on the lack of merit of the proposed appeal from the order of Myers J. Mr Bilich should be mindful that when he initiates a meritless step in his

case, he should expect to have costs awarded against him. In this light, he may wish to be mindful that there is no appeal from a decision denying leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from the interlocutory order of a judge.

D.L. Corbett J.