CITATION: Harris-Saunders v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 4827
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 043/18
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: GREGORY HARRIS-sAUNDERS, Applicant
AND:
CITY OF TORONTO, Respondent
BEFORE: Favreau J.
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicant, Gregory Harris-Saunders, sent an email to the Divisional Court requesting that a motion be scheduled to set aside an arbitration award.
2Mr. Harris-Saunders had originally brought an application for judicial review related to this matter in 2018. By endorsement dated September 19, 2018, Associate Chief Justice Marrocco quashed the application for judicial review in the context of a motion brought by the respondent, the City of Toronto. In his endorsement, Marrocco A.C.J. stated that the matter would be proceeding to arbitration in accordance with an agreement between the City and the union representing Mr. Harris-Saunders.
3It appears that Mr. Harris-Saunders now brings a motion to set aside the minutes of settlement made in the context of the arbitration award.
4After receiving the request for a hearing, I directed that Mr. Harris-Saunders provide the Court with his proposed notice of motion. In the notice of motion, Mr. Harris-Saunders asks for the following relief:
a. That the Court set aside minutes of settlement signed on November 25, 2019;
b. That the City of Toronto provide Schedule B to an affidavit of documents with “surveillance particulars”; and
c. That the Court make a finding of liability and award him damages, including punitive damages.
5The grounds for the motion are described as “undue influence and misrepresentation”, “lack of capacity” and “the agreement is unconscionable”.
6Having reviewed the notice of motion, I am concerned with the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction to hear this matter for several reasons. First, Mr. Harris-Saunders brings a motion in the context of an application for judicial review that has already been dismissed. Second, the Divisional Court is a statutory court whose jurisdiction is generally limited to applications for judicial review and prescribed appeals. It is unclear how a motion to set aside a settlement in the context of an arbitration award falls within that jurisdiction. Third, the Divisional Court does not have the authority to grant documentary discovery or damages.
7Besides my concerns over the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court over this matter, the notice of motion fails to provide any factual or legal particulars in support of the grounds for the motion.
8Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.
9The court is considering whether to dismiss Mr. Harris-Saunders’ motion on the basis of Rule 2.1.01 in this case. However, Mr. Harris-Saunders should be given an opportunity to explain why his motion should not be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.
10Accordingly, the court makes the following order:
a. pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to Mr. Harris-Saunders in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under rule 2.1.01 dismissing his motion;
b. If Mr. Harris-Saunders chooses to make written submission in response to the notice in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3)2, his written submissions should address the apparent deficiencies in his notice of motion, namely:
i. Given that Marrocco A.C.J. already dismissed the application for judicial review, the Divisional Court’s authority to consider this motion;
ii. The Divisional Court’s jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the motion and to grant the relief requested; and
iii. Particulars of the factual and legal grounds on which Mr. Harris-Saunders challenges the minutes of settlement.
c. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the application is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43;
d. The registrar shall accept no further filings in the application except for Mr. Harris-Saunders’s written submissions delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3); and
e. In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on Mr. Harris-Saunders and counsel for the respondent via email.
11In addition, the case conference scheduled for August 12, 2020 is cancelled. In the event this matter is not dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1, a case conference will be scheduled at a later date.
Favreau J.
Date: August 11, 2020