Lengyel v. TD Home, 2022 ONSC 4430

CITATION: Lengyel v. TD Home, 2022 ONSC 4430

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 281/21

DATE: 20220805

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

GABRIELLA LENGYEL

Ms Lengyel, self-represented

Appellant

– and –

TD HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE

Respondent

In Writing, In Chambers: August 3, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

D.L. Corbett J.

Background

1Ms Lengyel is represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) in the underlying litigation. The PGT settled the underlying litigation. Ms Lengyel opposed the settlement. The settlement was approved in the Superior Court of Justice. Ms Lengyel appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal quashed that appeal on the basis that Ms Lengyel, as a party under a disability represented by the PGT, had no standing to appeal court approval of the settlement: 2021 ONCA 237.

2In quashing the appeal, the Court of Appeal stated as follows (at paras. 5 and 7):

… if Ms. Lengyel were to take the route of seeking to replace her litigation guardian, that would be a matter to be dealt with before the Superior Court of Justice or, if taken by way of appeal from the original appointment order, to the Divisional Court, with leave.

The appeal is quashed for lack of jurisdiction. Our order is without prejudice to Ms. Lengyel bringing a motion before the Divisional Court for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian, if she is so advised. We would not make any order as to costs.

Rule 2.1 Notice

3Ms Lengyel then sought to commence a motion for leave to appeal in this court. There were many problems with this intended motion, and at my direction a Notice was issued pursuant to R.2.1, on the following basis:

1. The moving party is seeking to appeal the order of the Court of Appeal on the basis of bias, unfairness and error. This court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is the highest court in Ontario. The only appeal from the Court of Appeal is to the Supreme Court of Canada, with leave.

2. The moving party seeks to appeal a decision of Master Pope dated in 2017 and, apparently, every decision made by the courts in her case since that time. The moving party does not explain why she has delayed so long to bring those appeals.

3. The moving party has been found to be a party under a disability and the Public Guardian and Trustee has been appointed as her litigation guardian. The moving party may seek an extension to move for leave to appeal the decision finding her incapable and appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian. She may also seek leave to appeal from any subsequent decision refusing to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian. The moving party may not, however, seek leave to appeal or any other relief in respect to any other decisions in her cases. The Public Guardian and Trustee is authorized by law to take decisions on the moving party's behalf in the litigation, and the moving party has no standing to take any steps in those proceedings on her own. That is what the Court of Appeal decided in its recent decision and that decision is binding on this court.

Response to the Rule 2.1 Notice

4Ms Lengyel responded to the R.2.1 notice. In respect to her response:

(i) In respect to her motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ms Lengyel argues that it should not be dismissed because this is not one of the “clearest of cases” justifying summary dismissal. She argues that, if she has brought her motion in the wrong court, the proper thing for this court to do is to transfer her motion to the correct court. She says this court should exercise its discretion under s.110 of the Courts of Justice Act in this regard. This court has no jurisdiction to transfer a leave motion brought in this court to the Supreme Court of Canada. If Ms Lengyel wishes to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, she will have to initiate that process in the Supreme Court of Canada.

(ii) Ms Lengyel explains her delay in pursuing appeals from 2017 on confusion about routes of appeal and her disabilities. Those points, taken together, are not sufficient to justify an extension of five years in the deadline to seek leave to appeal or to bring an appeal. Further, Ms Lengyel has not distinguished between her intended motion to appeal appointment of the PGT and her intended appeals of other orders. She has no standing to appeal anything other than the order appointing the PGT.

(iii) In respect to the intended motion to appeal appointment of the PGT, Ms Lengyel says her motion is brought on the basis of the following points:

(1) The settlement that the PGT negotiated on her behalf was insufficient because it does not cover the appropriate rehabilitation for the injury.

(2) The PGT was negligent in handling her case and her medical records.

(3) Ms Lengyel argues that she can instruct a lawyer and gives her past representation by Thomson Rogers LLP as an example.

(4) Ms Lengyel asserts that the PGT appointment has and continues to adversely affect her health.

The first and second points are not bases for an appeal of the order appointing the PGT. The fourth point is supported only by an assertion by Ms Lengyel and would not be a basis for an appeal of the original appointment order. The third point could ground an argument for an appeal of the appointment order – in so noting I do not suggest that there is an arguable basis for the conclusion that Ms Lengyel is capable of forming and maintaining a relationship with counsel or that she is competent to instruct counsel.

Disposition

5Ms Lengyel’s Notice of Motion is prolix, unfocused, and in places incoherent. However, contained within it is a request to bring a motion for leave to appeal the order appointing the PGT. To bring that, Ms Lengyel will need to bring a motion for an extension of time in which to bring that motion.

6In all of the circumstances, Ms Lengyel’s motion is dismissed pursuant to R.2.1, without prejudice to her bringing a motion for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal the order appointing the PGT as her litigation guardian. If Ms Lengyel decides to bring that motion:

(a) She shall restrict her motion to the request for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal the appointment order;

(b) She shall serve her motion materials in support of the motion by September 30, 2022.

___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.