CITATION: Virgo v. Deputy Judges’ Council 2018 ONSC 5526
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 18-2387
DATE: 2018/09/19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: JENNIFER VIRGO v. DEPUTY JUDGES’ COUNCIL
BEFORE: LABROSSE J.
HEARD at Ottawa: Written submissions
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] On September 13, 2018, pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, (the “Rules”), I dismissed an application for judicial review brought by Jennifer Virgo on the basis that the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
[2] Ms. Virgo, by her representative Ade Olumide, has now filed a Motion Record with the Divisional Court in Ottawa seeking to vary my order pursuant to section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, (the“Act”). The proper path for an appeal from an order of the Divisional Court pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 is to the Court of Appeal for Ontario under s. 6(1) of the Act. On this issue, I adopt the reasons of Nordheimer J. (as he then was) in Hemchand v. Toronto (City), 2016 ONSC 7134.
[3] Thus, there is no jurisdiction in this Court to entertain the relief that Ms. Virgo seeks.
[4] Pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3) and on my own initiative as Local Administrative Judge for the Divisional Court in Ottawa, I order that this proceeding need not follow the process set out in Rule 2.1.01(3) given the clear jurisdictional path that requires an appeal of my Rule 2.1 decision to be filed with the Court of Appeal. Ms. Virgo has timelines that she needs to meet to file her appeal with the Court of Appeal and there is no need to delay this decision and risk requiring her to seek additional relief to file her appeal with the Court of Appeal if she were outside the required timelines.
[5] I conclude that there is no jurisdiction under s. 21(5) of the Act for a panel to review an order made by the Divisional Court under Rule 2.1.01. Ms. Virgo’s motion is thus without merit and constitutes a proceeding that is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise and abuse of process. Ms. Virgo’s motion to vary is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
LABROSSE J.
DATE: September 19, 2018