CITATION: Strang v. Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2948

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 512/16 DATE: 20170511

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

MARGARET (MALGORZATA) STRANG

Plaintiff

– and –

CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO – STATIO FISCI: TREASURY BOARD, Helena Jaczek, Minister, DAU – Disability Adjudication Unit, Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS), jointly and severally: Janet Menard, Deputy Minister, Richard Steele, Assistant Deputy Minister

employed at Disability Adjudication Unit of the Ministry of Community & Social Services Social Assistance Central Services Branch, (“The Employer”)

Defendants

Erica Richler, amicus curiae for the Plaintiff

Margaret Strang, acting in person

Henry Huang, for the Defendants

HEARD at Toronto: May 11, 2017

KITELEY J. (Orally)

[1] On August 5, 2016 in CV-16-553363, Pollak J. made an endorsement indicating that Ms. Strang had withdrawn her motion and she ordered Ms. Strang to pay costs of $200 within 60 days.

[2] On August 23, 2016 in CV-16-553363, on a motion for reconsideration of the August 5, 2016 decision, Kristjanson J. dismissed the motion and ordered Ms. Strang to pay costs of $100 payable within 60 days. She also directed the plaintiff in the future to serve the defendants by serving Mr. Rabinovitch as solicitor for all defendants.

[3] On January 12, 2017 in CV-16-557275, CV-16-557279 and CV-16-5533363 Chiappetta J. granted the defendants motion and dismissed the claims without leave to amend.

[4] On February 22, 2017 in CV-16-566304, on a motion by the defendants, Akbarali J. dismissed the plaintiff’s action without leave to amend. In her oral reasons for decision, she ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $400. However, the costs order does not appear in the signed and entered order. Mr. Huang confirmed today that he is not seeking to amend the signed and entered order and confirmed that the Crown will not try to recover those costs.

[5] Ms. Strang is asking today for an extension of time to file notices of appeal from the costs orders of Pollak J. and Kristjanson J.; to file a notice of appeal from the merits and the costs order of Chiappetta J.; and to file a notice of appeal from the merits of the order of Akbarali J. She is no longer seeking an extension of time to appeal the costs order of Akbarali J. because the defendants will not pursue them.

[6] It took me 35 minutes at the outset of the motion to try to ascertain what documents had been filed and by whom and to try to ascertain what Ms. Strang was trying to accomplish today. She did not mention the difference between an extension of time to file notices of appeal as opposed to an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the decisions as to costs of Pollak J. and Kristjanson J.

[7] As I understand it what she should be asking for is as follows:

(1) With respect to the orders of Pollak J. and Kristjanson J. she is seeking leave to extend the time to bring the motion for leave to appeal the costs orders and if granted, she is seeking an extension of time to deliver the notice of appeal.

(2) She is seeking an extension of time to deliver the notice of appeal from the order of Chiappetta J. as to the merits and the costs.

(3) She is seeking an extension of time to deliver the notice of appeal from the order of Akbarali J. as to the merits.

[8] After the lunch recess, Ms. Richler, who is amicus today, pointed out that once Ms. Strang advised this morning that she wanted to appeal the merits of the orders made by Chiappetta J. and Akbarali J. that this Court does not have jurisdiction and the appeal from those orders lies to the Court of Appeal.

[9] Ms. Strang tells me that she intends to go to the Court of Appeal and seek an extension of time in that Court to permit her to appeal the decisions of Chiappetta J. and Akbarali J.

[10] Thanks to the responding record provided by counsel for the respondents, I have the transcript of the decisions made by Chiappetta J. and Akbarali J.

[11] I do not grant any of the requests made by Ms. Strang for these reasons:

(1) In the case of the two costs orders, those of Pollak J. and Kristjanson J., those orders are highly discretionary. The plaintiff has not met the significant burden to persuade me that she should be permitted to pursue an appeal from those costs orders. Based on her submissions, she disagrees with the orders because she feels that they are unjust and because she cannot afford them. That is insufficient to justify granting leave to appeal the orders as to costs.

(2) In the case of the order of Chiappetta J., I do not grant Ms. Strang’s request to extend the time for leave to appeal for two reasons:

(i) Firstly, the Divisional Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such an appeal and consequently the motion for leave for extension of time cannot be granted.

(ii) Secondly, if I had the jurisdiction I would not allow Ms. Strang an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because there is no merit to the appeal based on the detailed reasons given by Chiappetta J.

(3) In the case of the order of Akbarali J., I do not grant Ms. Strang’s request for these reasons:

(i) Firstly, the Divisional Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the merits and therefore the motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal is also not within this Court’s jurisdiction.

(ii) Secondly, had this Court had the jurisdiction, I would find that there is no merit to the appeal based on the detailed reasons given by Akbarali J.

(4) Ms. Strang provided no evidence that she had any intention to appeal any of the orders in a timely way.

(5) In the period from at least August to this date, Ms. Strang has appeared before four other judges today being the fifth. She has initiated a proliferation of lawsuits and two judges have found four lawsuits to be without merit. In addition, in an endorsement dated March 10, 2017 (ONSC 1625), Myers J. dismissed CV-17-568386 pursuant to Rule 2.1. Ms. Strang failed to serve and file any meaningful documents for today which caused a waste of time in trying to sort out what was happening. She did not serve material to the extent that she filed any. She did not serve in accordance with the direction of Kristjanson J. She did not provide copies of her proposed notices of appeal. She did not serve a proper motion record to enable counsel for the respondents to know the case they were required to meet and indeed, the case that they were required to meet shifted during the course of submissions to include an appeal from the merits of the orders made by Akbarali J. and Chiappetta J. Ms. Strang disregarded the time limits set out in Rule 37. She spoke at length in her submissions and brought up all kinds of events and concerns all without any evidence. She insists that she has no money and cannot pay any costs ordered. She confirmed to me that she has obtained a fee waiver for, if not all, most of these proceedings that have been launched in the last seven or eight months. She is therefore using her ability to obtain repeated fee waivers to start a proliferation of cases which are without merit and to bring meritless motions. She is abusing the rules of court. She is causing a significant waste of judicial resources.

[12] Accordingly, I do not grant her an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal the costs order of Pollak J. and Kristjanson J. and therefore do not grant her an extension of time to deliver the notice of appeal. I have no jurisdiction to deal with the request that she be permitted to deliver the notice of appeal from the orders of Chiappetta J. and Akbarali J. but if I had the jurisdiction, I would not grant an extension.

[13] The Crown has brought a costs outline which totals $1,237.50 but Mr. Huang leaves with me what amount I should order. He does request that I make an order for some amount of costs. The costs outline reflects about 10 hours of advanced work and only 1 hour for today so it is too much for a motion of this dimension. It is too much for advanced work and too little for today.

[14] Ms. Strang was not successful in any respect. She continues to insist that she has no money and has given me in her submission details as to her rent and all other expenses and her limited income which she says is $900 per month employment insurance. I understand she has serious financial circumstances; however, she was not successful. She needs to know that there are consequences to bringing such matters before the Court, particularly by bringing matters in such disarray as I have described earlier in these reasons.

[15] I have written the endorsement on the back of the Motion Record of the Defendant because I do not have a motion record by the plaintiff. The endorsement, a copy of which you will be given is as follows:

costs

[16] “For oral reasons given today, order to go as follows:

(1) Requests to extend time to seek leave to appeal costs orders dated August 5, 2016 and August 23, 2016 are denied.

(2) Request to extend time to appeal the order of Chiappetta J. dated January 12, 2017 as to merits and costs denied because I do not have jurisdiction and in any event, there is no merit.

(3) Request to extend time to appeal order of Akbarali J. dated February 22, 2017 as to the merits only is denied because I do not have jurisdiction and in any event, there is no merit.

(4) Ms. Strang shall pay costs of today (finishing at 3:15 p.m.) fixed at $400.

(5) Ms. Strang shall pay costs as follows:

(i) order dated August 15, 2016 ($200) and order dated August 23, 2016 ($100) for a total of $300 to be paid by June 30, 2017; and

(ii) costs of today May 11, 2017 - $400 to be paid by July 30, 2017.

(6) Ms. Strang shall not take any steps in any existing of future proceeding in the Superior Court of Ontario or in the Divisional Court until she has paid all of the costs above.

(7) Crown may take out this order without approval as to form and content and may send it to my attention for signing.”

___________________________ KITELEY J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 11, 2017

Date of Release: May 16, 2017

CITATION: Strang v. Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2948

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 512/16 DATE: 20170511

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO – STATIO FISCI: TREASURY BOARD, Helena Jaczek, Minister, DAU – Disability Adjudication Unit, Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS), jointly and severally: Janet Menard, Deputy Minister, Richard Steele, Assistant Deputy Minister

employed at Disability Adjudication Unit of the Ministry of Community & Social Services Social Assistance Central Services Branch, (“The Employer”)

ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

KITELEY J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 11, 2017

Date of Release: May 16, 2017