CITATION: Khan v. 1806700 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONSC 3726

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 145/17

DATE: 20170615

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN v. 1806700 ONTARIO INC. and others

BEFORE: NORDHEIMER J.

COUNSEL: M. Khan, moving party in person

HEARD at Toronto

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] On June 5, 2017, I dismissed Mr. Khan’s motion for leave to appeal from the decision of Matheson J., dated March 7, 2017, in which the motion judge struck out the plaintiff’s claim against Sandeep Singh Johal with leave to amend and stayed the proceeding pending the final determination of related proceedings ongoing in Brampton.

[2] On June 8, 2017, Mr. Khan filed with the Divisional Court office, a motion to set aside or vary my order along with a request for an interim order staying enforcement of it. From a review of the seventeen grounds set out in the motion, it is clear that Mr. Khan is, in effect, seeking to appeal my order dismissing his motion for leave to appeal.

[3] The general rule is that there is no right of appeal from an order refusing leave to appeal: Nithiananthan v. Quash, [2017] O.J. No. 969 (Div. Ct). The sole exception is where jurisdiction has been mistakenly declined: Canadian Utilities Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue, [1964] S.C.R. 57. There is no suggestion in Mr. Khan’s motion that jurisdiction was declined and, in any event, a review of my reasons on the motion for leave to appeal would clearly show that I did not decline jurisdiction.

[4] Mr. Khan has, therefore, failed to show, on the face of his motion, that he can fall within the exception to the general rule that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant leave to appeal.

[5] Consequently, there is no jurisdiction for this court to entertain Mr. Khan’s motion. The motion thus constitutes a proceeding that is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court’s process. Accordingly, pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.

[6] There will be no order as to costs.

NORDHEIMER J.

DATE: June 15, 2017