Court File and Parties

CITATION: Behre v. Bathurst Optical et al., 2018 ONSC 6849

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-706

DATE: 2018-11-16

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Yohannes Behre, Moving Party

AND:

Bathurst Optical et al., Respondents

BEFORE: H. Sachs J.

COUNSEL: Applicant appeared on his own behalf

HEARD at Toronto: November 15, 2018

Endorsement

[1] This motion arises as a result of an action that Mr. Behre brought in the Small Claims Court against Bathurst Optical, Toronto College of Opticians, David Milne and Ingrid Koene. On August 1, 2017 Thomson J. dismissed the claims as against all the defendants in that action other than Bathurst Optical. On August 13, 2018 Mr. Behre was granted a judgment against Bathurst Optical for $300.00 in damages and $300.00 in costs. Bathurst Optical did not appear at the hearing when the judgment was granted against it.

[2] Since that date Mr. Behre has been seeking to enforce his judgment against Bathurst Optical, which has apparently gone out of business. To date he has been unable to realize on his judgment.

[3] Mr. Behre has brought a motion before the Divisional Court seeking a number of forms of relief, including setting aside the order dismissing the case against Toronto College of Opticians, Mr. Milne and Ms. Koene and ordering the “Ministry of Consumer and College of Opticians to provide me with the Bathurst Optical owner”. The only request that Mr. Behre has made that is appropriately before me is his request for an order extending the time to appeal the dismissal order that was made over 15 months ago. His stated purpose in making all of his requests is so that he can collect on his judgment for $300.00 plus $300.00 in costs.

[4] None of the respondents appeared on this motion.

[5] With request to his request to extend the time for appealing the dismissal order, Mr. Behre has failed to satisfy the test for extending the time to appeal an order, which includes providing evidence of an intention to appeal the order within the prescribed time period, an explanation for the delay in appealing, lack of prejudice and evidence that the appeal has merit. No sworn evidence on any of these points was provided by Mr. Behre to support his motion. Secondly, in essence, Mr. Behre is seeking relief from the Divisional Court so that he can collect on his Small Claims Court judgment for $300.00 and $300.00 in costs. The Divisional Court does have jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Small Claims Court, but only with respect to amounts in excess of $2500.00 (excluding costs). Mr. Behre’s claim falls well below this amount.

[6] For these reasons, Mr. Behre’s motion is dismissed.

H. Sachs J.

Date: November 16, 2018