Citation
CITATION: Sivanadian v. Kanagaratnam, 2020 ONSC 6502
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 227/20
DATE: 20201026
Court and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: RUBAN R. SIVANADIAN, Applicant
AND:
RAVEENDRAN KANAGARATNAM, KUGATHASAN SARANGAPANI, KANESHAPILLAI SOMASUNDERAM, SAYON BALASUNTHARAM, VAIKUNTHARASA NADARASA, SUBOSHAN THEVARAJAH, ARAVINTHAN STATHANANTHAN, KANAGAVARATHA KANAGARATNAM, KESAVAN KANAGARAJAH, SUTHARSHAN SIRINIVASAN, MATHIALAGAN RAJAGOPAL, KRISHNANANDAN RATNASINGHAM, VILOSANAN SIVATHARMAN, WAKISAN MATHIAPARANAM, SIVAKUMARAN GUNARETNAM, VASANTHAKUMAR VELMURUGU and SHANTHYPOOSAN JEYABALAN, Respondents (JHCAC Executives)
JAFFNA HINDU COLLEGE ASSOCIATION CANADA (JHCAC), Respondent
MOHAN RATNASINGHAM, PONNUDURAI BALENDRAN, RATNAM SENTHILMARAN, NATHAN SRITHARAN and SUBRAMANIAN SANMUGARAJAH, Respondents (JHCAC Patrons)
BEFORE: Favreau J.
Endorsement
[1] The applicant sent a request to the Divisional Court seeking to bring an application for judicial review on an urgent basis. I held a telephone case conference on October 23, 2020 in which the applicant and Kugathasan Sarangapani, one of the respondents, participated. Mr. Sarangapani identified himself as a representative of the respondent Jaffna Hindu College Association Canada (JHCAC).
[2] During the call, I raised issues about whether the Divisional Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
[3] The applicant seeks to challenge a decision made by the JHCAC suspending him from the executive committee of the JHCAC. In his notice of application for judicial review, the applicant describes the JHCAC and the other respondents as follows:
The Respondent JHCAC is an old boy’s association through paid membership driven from the old boys of the Jaffna Hindu College who reside in Canada.
The JHCAC is a registered non-profit organization in Ontario (CPN. #916235) and is operated and located in P.O. Box 92074, RPO Bridlewood Mall, Scarborough, ON, M1W 3Y8.
The individual Respondents JHCAC-EC are paid members of the JHCAC and are the Executive Committee members of the JHCAC.
The Respondents-Patrons are old boys of JHC, JHC teacher, JHC principal and JHCAC life-members and past presidents.
[4] The notice of application for judicial review refers to the JHCAC By-Laws and the JHCAC Constitution as the binding rules that govern the JHCAC’s decision making. It therefore appears that the JHCAC is a voluntary association that derives its decision making powers from its own constituent documents.
[5] In Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall, 2018 SCC 26, at para. 14, the Supreme Court of Canada held that judicial review “is only available where there is an exercise of state authority and where that exercise is of a sufficiently public character.” [emphasis added]
[6] In this case, the applicant seeks to judicially review the decision of a non-government voluntary association. Accordingly, based on my review of the notice of application for judicial review, it appears that the Divisional Court does not have the authority to review the JHCAC’s decision to suspend the applicant’s membership.
[7] Rule 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.
[8] For the reasons above, the court is considering whether to dismiss the application on the basis of Rule 2.1.01 in this case. However, the applicant should be given an opportunity to explain why his application should not be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.
[9] Accordingly, the court makes the following order:
a. pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under rule 2.1.01 dismissing his application;
b. If the applicant 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 identified above, namely, the basis on which he says the Divisional Court has the jurisdiction to deal with this matter given that it appears to challenge the decision of a non-government voluntary association.
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 the applicant’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 the applicant and on the JHCAC’s representative who appeared on the case conference, Kugathasan Sarangapani.
Favreau J.
Date: October 26, 2020