Court File and Parties

CITATION: Riddell v. Carefree, 2018 ONSC 6701

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC 752/17 and 285/18

DATE: 20181126

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Matthew Riddell, Applicant

• and-

CAREFREE MOVING INC., Respondent

BEFORE: Myers J.

READ at Toronto: November 19, 2018

ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement dated November 7, 2018, reported at 2018 ONSC 6701, the court stayed these two applications and directed the registrar to send notices to the applicant indicating that the court was considering dismissing the applications for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

[2] In these proceedings, applicant has brought a motion to a panel under s. 21 (5) of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990 c C.43, to review and set aside the order of a judge of this court setting aside her own order granting leave to appeal to the applicant from a $250 costs order made against him by a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge. In addition, the applicant has brought an application for judicial review from the same costs decision of the Small Claims Court Deputy Judge.

[3] In the November 7, 2018 endorsement, the court advised Mr. Riddell:

Mr. Riddell has brought two proceedings together to challenge a $250 costs order. He has a right of appeal with leave that has been dealt with. It is an abuse of process to try to use a judicial review proceeding to circumvent a leave to appeal requirement or a statutory financial minimum jurisdiction. Mr. Riddell’s further rights, if any, appear to lie elsewhere.

[4] Mr. Riddell has delivered written submissions under rule 2.1.01 (3)(2) in which he submits that his proceedings are proper and ought not to be summarily dismissed. He relies on Milton (Town) v. Neelands, 1996 1534 (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 3976 (CA) and Overseas Missionary Fellowship v. 578369 Ontario Ltd., 1990 6771 (ON CA), [1990] O.J. No. 699.

[5] Mr. Riddell writes eloquently in the language of the law. However, just as poor communication skills will not be allowed to mask a valid proceeding, good communications skills cannot be allowed to dress up an abuse of process as if it states a proper claim.

[6] In Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, the Court of Appeal discussed the proper approach to Rule 2.1 as follows:

[8] Under this line of authority, the court has recognized that the rule should be interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. However, the use of the rule should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process.

[7] As Mr. Riddell notes in his submissions, this is not his first contest in this court concerning an interlocutory costs decision of a Small Claims Court judge. He has succeeded in challenging a costs award made against him previously. The applicable legal test is not in doubt. He now wishes to expand the engagement of this court in a proposed two-track process for challenging Small Claims Court costs awards either by appeal or judicial review depending on the underlying nature of the error that he asserts in the costs order. He argues that there is importance to the administration of justice in his policing the exercises of jurisdiction by the Small Claims Court and a judge of this court. He gives no heed to the importance to the administration of justice of efficiency, affordability, proportionality and, especially, finality in civil cases.

[8] The court has heard his motion for leave to appeal and disposed of it on a final basis. If Mr. Riddell is not content with the outcome, his remedy, if any, is before the Court of Appeal. Direk v Ontario (Attorney General), 2011 ONSC 3830 (Div Ct) and Peritus Inc. v. Elder, 2011 ONSC 7357, at paras. 10 and 15. Judicial review of the Small Claims Court is a very narrow jurisdiction. It is not available to circumvent the rules so as to bring before this court a matter for which leave to appeal has been denied.

[9] In my view, these applications satisfy both of the tests set out in Scaduto. It is an abuse of process to bring two parallel proceedings before this court to challenge either by review under s. 21 (5) of the CJA or by an application for judicial review, the denial of leave to appeal by a judge of this court from an interlocutory costs award made by a Deputy Judge in the Small Claims Court.

[10] Therefore, applications 752/17 and 285/18 are dismissed.

[11] The court dispenses with any requirement for the applicant to approve the form or content of the formal order dismissing the applications. In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to send a copy of this endorsement to the applicants and counsel for the respondents by email if it has their email addresses.

[12] No costs.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: November 26, 2018