Citation and Court Information
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 297/17 DATE: 20170630
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
FREDRICK GOODMAN COB AS
Fredrick Goodman, acting in person
FREDRICK GOODMAN PARALEGAL
Applicant/Plaintiff
– and –
PATRICK B. FLORIN
Patrick Florin, acting in person
Respondent/Defendant
HEARD at Toronto: June 30, 2017
D.L. CORBETT J. (Orally)
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Overview
Mr. Goodman seeks a stay of small claims court proceedings pending conclusion of his application for judicial review of the decision of Deputy Judge De Lucia, which granted Mr. Goodman an adjournment but on terms. It is the terms to which Mr. Goodman objects.
[2]
Preliminary Objection
Mr. Florin raises a preliminary objection that this motion ought not proceed while Mr. Goodman has outstanding costs orders payable to Mr. Florin in this court. I prefer to deal with this matter in a different manner. However, I do direct Mr. Goodman not to commence or pursue any further steps against Mr. Florin in the Superior Court, Court of Appeal or Divisional Court without paying all indebtedness to Mr. Florin associated with previous costs orders in these courts totaling $3,150, plus any costs he may be ordered to pay by me today.
[3]
Analysis
Mr. Goodman argues, correctly, that this court has jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review from a decision from the small claims court, whether that decision is final or interlocutory. See Riddell v. Apple Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6014, Elguindy v. St. Joseph’s Health Care Centre, 2016 ONSC 6847, para. 6, Pardar v. McKoy, 2011 ONSC 2599, para. 3. The scope of the jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of an interlocutory decision of the small claims court is narrow. Pattillo J. held in Elguindy:
While there is no appeal from an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court, judicial review is available, but only with respect to the narrow issue of jurisidiction: Peck v. Residential Property Management, 2009 38504 (ON SCDC), [2009] OJ NO. 3064 (Div. Ct.).
J. Wilson J. put it this way in Pardar:
This Court also has jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of a Small Claims Court judge including interlocutory orders. However, as was said in the decision of Peck v. Residential Property Management, 2009 38504 (ON SCDC), [2009] OJ No. 3064 (Div. Ct):
[T]his Court is reluctant to interfere with a decision of a Small Claims Court judge on judicial review unless it is an order made without jurisdiction or in breach of principles of natural justice. (para. 3).
4This court recently put the principle as follows in Lourenco v. Hegedus, 2017 ONSC 3872:
In rare cases this court will intervene on an application for judicial review in the midst of an administrative process where there are strong reasons to believe that the process is so deeply flawed that there is strong likelihood that it will have to be run over again, usually on the basis of bias, reasonable apprehension of bias or want of jurisdiction…. It must be emphasized that early judicial review is the rare exception, not the rule, and will only be permitted in rare cases where the potential risk of repeating proceedings after review outweighs the prejudice to the general orderly processing of administrative proceedings without interruption until their conclusion. (para. 6)
5This judicial review does not come close to meeting this test, or the more general tests cited J. Wilson J. and Pattillo J. Mr. Goodman argues that principles that apply to administrative tribunals are not necessarily the same as those that apply to a statutory court like the small claims court. I see no reason in principle to draw a distinction – interlocutory appeals and early applications for judicial review tend to disrupt the orderly and timely processing of matters in both these contexts and if anything the principle has greater force in the context of the small claims court where hearings tend to be summary. Contrast that with the thirteen day hearing scheduled in Lourenco v. Hegedus or the longer hearings typical of bodies like the Ontario Securities Commission. A “re-do” in small claims court is unlikely to lead to serious prejudice in the vast majority of cases.
6Mr. Goodman argues that Deputy Judge De Lucia’s order for particulars raises jurisdictional issues because there is no discovery (beyond exchanging documents) in the small claims court. First, particulars are not discovery. Particulars are explanations of a claim not evidence for the claim. Second, the Deputy Judge has jurisdiction to order particulars. If he erred in law in so doing, that does not deprive him of jurisdiction. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, there are few issues of true jurisdiction any more. Third, I see no cogent argument that ordering particulars could give rise to prejudice so serious as to warrant the delay and cost of judicial review.
7The other objections to the order of Deputy Judge De Lucia are not matters of jurisdiction. They do not warrant judicial review.
[8]
Disposition
The motion for a stay is denied. In the result, this judicial review will be moot by the time it is heard. It is also manifestly devoid of merit. I appreciate that Nordheimer J. refused to dismiss this proceeding under R. 2.1. I do so on a different basis: that, on the merits, it has no chance of success.
9Motion to stay denied. Application for judicial review quashed. Costs to Mr. Florin for today fixed at $500 inclusive, payable within 30 days by Mr. Goodman.
10Any party is entitled to seek a review of a motion decision of a single Divisional Court judge to a panel of the Divisional Court. So it is clear to the small claims court, in the absence of a stay order, a motion to review this decision does not act to stay proceedings in the small claims court.
D.L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 30, 2017
Date of Release: July 4, 2017
CITATION: Goodman v. Florin, 2017 ONSC 4110
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 297/17 DATE: 20170630
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
FREDRICK GOODMAN COB AS FREDRICK GOODMAN PARALEGAL Applicant/Plaintiff
– and –
PATRICK B. FLORIN Respondent/Defendant
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D.L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 30, 2017
Date of Release: July 4, 2017