Court File and Parties

Citation: Langenfeld v. Ontario, 2016 ONSC 1040 Court File No.: 487/15 Date: 2016-02-11 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Kristian Rolf Langenfeld, Plaintiff (Appellant) And: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Defendant (Respondent)

Before: H. Sachs J.

Counsel: Kristian Rolf Langenfeld, on his own behalf Jeremy Glick, for the Defendant (Respondent)

Heard at Toronto: February 9, 2016

Endorsement

[1] The Appellant appeals the decision of Deputy Judge Ashby striking his Amended Statement of Claim.

[2] The issue on this appeal is whether the decision of the Deputy Judge discloses an error of law or a palpable and overriding error of fact.

[3] The first basis upon which the Amended Claim was struck is that to the extent that the claim in the Amended Claim is for something other than damages, the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to grant the declaratory relief sought. This is clearly correct.

[4] The Deputy Judge also found that to the extent that the claim is a claim for damages, it is a repetition of a previous claim that had been dismissed. According to the Appellant, Corbett J. gave him leave to file the Amended Statement of Claim provided that he did so in compliance with the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. Corbett J. gave the Appellant leave to pursue the issue of principle as to whether he should have to pay bank fees to cash a cheque. He found that the balance owing to the Appellant had now been paid. The Appellant’s Amended Claim does not pursue the issue of principle, except as it seeks declaratory relief. It only seeks damages as it did in the first claim that was dismissed. Therefore, the Deputy Judge’s reasoning on this issue was also correct.

[5] The Deputy Judge also found that the Amended Claim was an impermissible collateral attack on the decision of the OLRB. I agree. Before the OLRB, the Appellant sought an order directing his employer to reimburse him for the fees charged by the bank at which he had cashed his pay cheques. This is clear from para. 2 of the OLRB decision. The OLRB denied the Appellant’s request, finding that his employer had the right to pay him his wages by cheque and that if the Appellant felt that he should not be charged fees for cashing his cheque, his dispute was with the bank, not the employer. The Amended Claim seeks to dispute this finding and is, thus, a collateral attack on the order of the Board. Thus, this aspect of the Deputy Judge’s decision is also correct.

[6] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The Respondent, mindful of the amount in issue, only seeks costs of $750.00. In my view, this request is a reasonable one and it is so ordered.

H. SACHS J.

Date: 20160211