Court File and Parties
CITATION: Taylor v. Pivotal, 2021 ONSC 4954
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 381/20
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: paul taylor, Moving Party
AND:
PIVOTAL INTEGRATED HR SOLUTIONS, Responding Party
AND:
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, Added Party
BEFORE: Favreau J.
COUNSEL: Paul Taylor – representing himself
Andrew Lokan – representing the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
Endorsement
[1]
Endorsement
Paul Taylor sent a request to the Divisional Court seeking to schedule a motion for interim relief. The Court is considering dismissing the motion on the basis of Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
2The motion is brought in the context of an underlying motion for reconsideration of an order previously made dismissing Mr. Taylor’s application for judicial review. In a decision dated October 8, 2020, Sachs J. dismissed Mr. Taylor’s application for judicial review. Her decision includes a comprehensive review of the history of Mr. Taylor’s proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, before the Superior Court and before this Court. Ultimately, she found that Mr. Taylor’s delay in bringing the underlying application for judicial review exceeded twelve years, and she dismissed the application for judicial review for delay.
3Mr. Taylor has brought a motion pursuant to section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review Sachs J.’s decision. The motion is scheduled to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court on November 17, 2021.
4The materials sent to the Divisional Court on the motion for interim relief include a notice of motion and a notice of constitutional question. In his notice of motion, Mr. Taylor seeks the interim reinstatement of Workers’ Compensation benefits and medical care. He also seeks a “knowledge interpreter” to assist him with the court proceedings. In his notice of constitutional question, Mr. Taylor seeks to “question the constitutional validity of the WSIB, the WSIAT and the Court practice of not paying injured workers while they await the outcome of appeal decisions of the WSIB, the WSIAT and/or the Court”.
5Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may dismiss a motion that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.
6The court is considering whether to dismiss the motion for interim relief and the notice of constitutional question on the basis of Rule 2.1.01. The issues raised by Mr. Taylor appear to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because he seeks interim relief in the context of an application for judicial review that is currently dismissed and that was dismissed on the basis that the issues raised on the application had already been raised in several other proceedings and dated back to an original decision made over twelve years ago.
7However, Mr. Taylor should be given an opportunity to explain why this motion should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
[8]
Order
Accordingly, the court makes the following order:
a. Pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to Mr. Taylor in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under rule 2.1.02 dismissing his motion;
b. If Mr. Taylor chooses to make written submissions in response to the notice in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3)2, his written submissions should address the apparent deficiencies identified above;
c. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the motion 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 on the motion except for Mr. Taylor’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 send a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the moving party and Mr. Lokan.
Favreau J.
Date: July 19, 2020