Sui v. Liang, 2022 ONSC 5623

CITATION: Sui v. Liang, 2022 ONSC 5623

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 056/22

DATE: 20221004

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: HUA SUI v. ZHI YONG LIANG and mei yuan liang

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

Mr. Sui, self-represented

HEARD: March 23, 2022, in writing

REASONS FOR DECISION

1This endorsement explains why I am dismissing Mr Sui’s appeal.

Background

2This is an appeal from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the respondents’/landlords’ request to recover rental premises occupied by Mr Sui for use of those premises by a family member. Mr Sui appealed this decision to the Divisional Court and thereby obtained a statutory stay of the LTB’s eviction order pending the appeal or order of this court.

3This court requires that a tenant move promptly with their appeal when they are the beneficiary of a stay. The precise scheduling terms that may be required are tailored to the circumstances of the case, but the underlying principle is applied consistently: where a tenant has a stay, if the tenant fails to move forward promptly in accordance with the court’s scheduling directions, the court may order the stay lifted.

4From the outset, Mr Sui brought numerous technical challenges and objections. The court directed an early case management conference to provide directions for moving forward. That conference was held before me on February 15, 2022. My directions from that conference were sent to the parties on February 18, 2022:

The court confirms the case management teleconference held on February 15, 2022.

1. The tenant has sought a recording of proceedings before the LTB but thus far has not had success in obtaining it. The court asked counsel for the LTB to use his good offices to facilitate the tenant's obtaining this recording. During discussion, the tenant indicated that he may also need a transcript from an appearance before the LTB on August 17, 2021. Counsel for the LTB is also asked to use his good offices to facilitate the tenant's obtaining the recording of that earlier appearance.

2. Counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent takes the position that the earlier hearing (in August) is not needed for the purpose of this appeal. The court will not decide that point at this stage. If the tenant wishes to obtain the earlier transcript and have a transcript prepared of it, and if the recording is available, then the tenant may take those steps. The relevance and admissibility of the prior transcript in this appeal is an issue to be left for another day.

3. The tenant seemed to believe that the recordings would, themselves, be filed in this court. That is not so. The recordings are used to obtain a transcript from an authorized transcriptionist, and it is the transcripts that are filed in this court. It is the tenant's responsibility to arrange and pay for these transcripts.

4. The tenant argues that the Board member who signed the impugned decision and the Board member who presided at the hearing, are not the same person. The court asked counsel or the LTB to make inquiries of the Registrar of the LTB to determine the identity of the presiding Board member at the hearing, to try to determine if there is a concern on this issue on the face of the Record. Once the results of that inquiry are known, the parties may address this issue further with the court by email.

5. The tenant asked for summons to witnesses to summons to Board members to testify before this court. That will not happen. Board members are not compellable witnesses in proceedings before this court. This court decides cases on the basis of the Record from the proceedings below. Where a party disputes the accuracy of the Record, it is for that party to adduce evidence before this court substantiating his concerns with the Record. However, before that issue is explored in this case, the court will await the results of LTB's inquiries of the Registrar's office at the LTB.

6. Once the tenant has received the recordings he has requested, it is his responsibility to obtain transcripts on a timely basis by retaining a transcriptionist to prepare them. The tenant estimated the length of the hearing in December 2021 at about twenty minutes. On this basis, the transcript should be quite short and should not take a long time to prepare. The court will allow thirty days for the recordings to be obtained and the transcripts prepared. One this basis, the parties shall follow the schedule set out below:

(a) March 15, 2022: the tenant shall serve all transcripts on which he relies in this appeal;

(b) April 14, 2022: the tenant shall serve all of his appeal materials (including his Appeal Book and Compendium and his Factum);

(c) May 13, 2022: the respondent shall serve all responding materials;

(d) May 20, 2022: the LTB shall serve its materials (if it decides to participate in the appeal).

The parties shall provide their appeal materials (including costs materials) to the court by uploading them to CaseLines by May 20, 2022.

The parties are cautioned that the schedule is mandatory.

The parties are directed to the court's Notice to Profession dated February 18, 2021 (available on the court's web site) and are asked to follow the Notice in respect to (a) materials uploaded to CaseLines; (b) "filing" materials with the court; and (c) payment of court fees. The parties are advised that during oral argument, the court expects them to refer to materials by CaseLines page number, and not by reference to the page number or by tabs in the record: use of CaseLines page numbers assists the court to navigate through the record during oral argument using the "Find Page" function in CaseLines.

The Toronto Registrar of the Divisional Court is asked to provide the parties with a hearing date before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court for an estimated 0.5 days on a date no earlier than June 13, 2022 and to advise the parties of the date by March 11, 2022.

5After the case conference, but before my endorsement was released to the parties, the court received a lengthy email from Mr Sui, and a shorter email from counsel for the landlord. The court addressed these two emails in an email to the parties on February 17, 2022, as follows:

Justice Corbett directs me to advise you as follows:

Mr Sui has written to the court offering his characterization of the case management teleconference and suggesting various steps that should be taken. Counsel for the landlord has written asking about the scheduling of the landlord's "urgent motion" served in advance of the case conference.

A court proceeding is not a running conversation between the litigants and the court. The parties are to follow the directions provided by the court and they are otherwise not to communicate with the court unless the court directs otherwise.

This case conference was held on February 15th, the instructions given at the conference were clear, and it was inappropriate to be writing to the court prior to receipt of the court's endorsement. The endorsement has been prepared and will be processed by court staff and sent to the parties in due course.

The court has not scheduled the landlord's "urgent motion", but will do so after a further conference, to be directed by the court, after the initial steps directed by the court have been completed. The parties are encouraged to read the court's two Notices to Profession, available on the court's web site, which set out the court's case management practices.

6Pursuant to my direction, court staff scheduled the hearing of the appeal for October 11, 2022. Mr Sui objected to this date in an email, as follows:

If the date for the panel hearing is scheduled later than the expiry date of LTB order (i.e. Sept. 1, 2022), the appeal on the then expired LTB order would be dismissed as moot case. So I do not agree that the panel hearing is scheduled beyond Sept. 1, 2022.

This appeal is not a complicated one. Just as Justice Corbett stated at the case conference on Feb. 15, 2022, if Mr. Michael Di Salle did not hear the LTB application (file no. TEL-19931-21) on Dec. 21, 2021, then it was a "mistake" and the court can make the decision earlier.

That's not my own characterization of the case management teleconference at Feb. 15, 2022. And the official recording of the case conference can confirm that.

According to Justice Corbett's directions on Feb. 18, 2022 via Ms. Pearla Badio’s email, "The parties shall provide their appeal materials (including costs materials) to the court by uploading them to CaseLines by May 20, 2022."

If the panel hearing is scheduled in October, the appeal matter would be left inactive for about 5 months. This appeal commenced on Jan. 25, 2022.

Do we really need 10 months to find out the identity of the LTB member who heard the LTB application (file no. TEL-19931-21) on Dec. 21, 2021? Or is this the delay tactic for the indefensible parties to get away with wrongdoings ?

Mr. Jason Tam, counsel for LTB, stated ambiguously in his email on Feb. 16, 2022 that "From a review of the system and listening to the recording of the hearing on December 21, 2021, I can confirm that the presiding adjudicator was Mr. Di Salle."

Mr. Jason Tam has since become unresponsive on the identity of the LTB member after I've emailed him twice and asked him to confirm that "Mr. Michael Di Salle was the adjudicator who heard the LTB application (file no. TEL-19931-21) at Toronto East Region office (2275 Midland Avenue, Unit 2, Toronto ON M1P 3E7) on Dec. 21, 2021."

I hope that Divisional Court treats the involved parties fairly no matter whether the party is a tribunal, a lawyer or a self-represented litigant.

I'm waiting for the Divisional Court's response to my Notice of Motion filed on Feb. 24, 2022 (yesterday).

7The court responded to this concern as follows:

Appeals in this court are seldom heard and decided within six months of the original decision. The appeal court can extend the effective period of the LTB order, and the statutory stay pending appeal has the effect of staying the operation of the order. If the respondent has continuing concerns about this, he may wish to seek legal advice.

8It turned out hat Mr Sui had also purported to initiate an “urgent” motion the day before his email respecting the hearing date. In that motion, he requested that the court “subpoena” a certified recording of Board proceedings, “subpoena” information of the identity of presiding Board members at two hearings below and extend the deadline for transcripts.

9The court issued the following directions in response to the proposed motion:

The tenant is acting vexatiously and putting the court and the other parties to unnecessary time and trouble.

The court held a case conference in this matter on February 15th and gave directions to move this matter forward.

Counsel for the LTB is asked to advise the court as to when he can provide information about transcripts and the information at the Board respecting the identity of the presiding member at the hearing and the identity of the Board member signing the decision.

The tenant purported to initiate a motion yesterday seeking to take steps that were specifically addressed at the case management conference. These issues have been addressed by this court. Court staff do not have time to deal with such vexatious requests. It is ordered that the tenant may initiate no steps in this proceeding without case management authorization, and he is directed not to seek such authorization in respect to matters for which the court has already issued directions.

Second, case management is not a "discussion". When the court issues a direction, it is mandatory and not an invitation for further debate.

Finally, the schedule was devised on the basis of the court's expectation that the LTB would provide information more quickly than has turned out to be the case. Counsel and the Board are both busy, the court did not place a deadline on LTB counsel in respect to these tasks in recognition of that point, and if the schedule for exchange of materials needs to be modified as a result, the court will issue the necessary directions in due course.

10On March 1, 2022, counsel for the LTB advised the court as follows:

(1) I had the LTB re-send the recordings via electronic transfer and I myself sent the recordings electronically. Given some difficulties with the download, the LTB mailed, via Purolator, a CD containing the recordings to Mr. Sui. Mr. Sui was advised that the CD was mailed on or about February 17, 2022. To clarify, the LTB does not provide transcripts, only the recording – I understand that Mr. Sui, was directed to obtain the transcripts on his own.

(2) I advised Mr. Sui via e-mail on February 16, 2022 that a review of the system and listening to the recordings myself, that Mr. Di Salle in fact presided at the hearing on December 21, 2021.

11I then sent the following directions to the parties:

Based on the information provided by LTB counsel, Mr Sui should now have the recordings and should have arranged to have the transcripts made. He is directed to confirm both of these points to the court by email by March 4, 2022 and to confirm the date the transcriptionist has advised that the transcripts will be ready.

Based on the information provided by LTB counsel, it appears that Mr Sui was in error in his concern that the presiding Board member is not the member who signed the decision. If Mr Sui pursues this issue further, it will be for him to provide some foundation for his expressed concern in the materials he files in support of the appeal.

The court thanks Board counsel for assisting with the recordings and the point raised by Mr Sui about the identity of the presiding Board member.

12The Registrar confirmed the hearing date of October 11, 2022, on my instructions, following which Mr Sui again objected to the date. The court issued the following direction in response:

Justice Corbett directs me to advise Mr. Sui that the court will not consider a request to expedite the appeal date until Mr. Sui has served and uploaded his appeal materials. Once he has done that, he may ask the court to expedite the hearing of the appeal to an earlier date.

13On March 3, 2022, Mr Sui wrote to the court advising that the recordings sent to him by the LTB had not been certified and requesting that his motion to seek an order for a “certified” recording be scheduled. I directed staff to schedule a further case management teleconference.

14In response to staff’s efforts to schedule the case management conference, Mr Sui wrote to the court as follows:

I insist that the second urgent motion with the heading "Landlord and Tenant Board vs. Hua Sui" I filed on Feb. 24, 2022 be scheduled for hearing.

I don't want to waste time through email exchanges, which cannot go into court record.

It's been 7 weeks since I submitted the request for the LTB hearing recording on Jan 13, 2022. And I still could not obtain the "certified" LTB hearing recording.

Plus, according to Canada Evidence Act, there is no credibility for Mr. Jason Tam, counsel for LTB, to make the statement in his email about the identity of LTB member who heard the LTB application (file no. TEL-19931-21) at Toronto East Region office (2275 Midland Avenue, Unit 2, Toronto ON M1P 3E7) on Dec. 21, 2021. The hearing for my second urgent motion with the heading "Landlord and Tenant Board vs. Hua Sui" is warranted to address the two matters: "certified" LTB hearing recording and the identity of LTB member who heard the LTB application (file no. TEL-19931-21) at Toronto East Region office (2275 Midland Avenue, Unit 2, Toronto ON M1P 3E7) on Dec. 21, 2021.

Also, I would like to receive the endorsement of case management signed by Justice David L. Corbett before the to-be-scheduled hearing for my second urgent motion.

15Staff responded to this email at my direction, advising Mr Sui that I had directed there be a further case management conference, that conference would proceed as directed, and he could raise any concerns he has with me at the case conference.

16Mr Sui again advised that he refused to attend a further case conference:

Yet another case management conference to be scheduled on March 10, 2022 ?

Didn't we already have a case management conference three weeks ago on Feb. 15, 2022 ?

I'm experiencing a nightmarish appeal proceeding after the case management conference held on Feb. 15, 2022:

1. No court's endorsement for the case management conference held on Feb. 15, 2022.

2. Divisional Court's refusal to release the digital court recording of the case management conference held on Feb. 15, 2022.

3. Divisional Court's intriguing, enigmatic handling of the landlord's "urgent motion" filed on Feb. 11, 2022.

4. Lots of "alleged" Justice Corbett's directions delivered through emails.

5. No certified recording released for the LTB hearing held on Dec. 21, 2021 after I submitted the request for the LTB hearing recording on Jan. 13, 2022.

6. No official confirmation on the identity of the LTB member who heard the LTB application (file no. TEL-19931-21) at Toronto East Region office (2275 Midland Avenue, Unit 2, Toronto ON M1P 3E7) on Dec. 21, 2021.

7. Divisional Court's scheduling of the panel hearing beyond the expiry date of the LTB order.

8. Divisional Court's unresponsiveness to my urgent Notice of Motion filed on Feb. 24, 2022.

I'm not going to attend another case management conference. And I request that the Divisional Court schedule a hearing for the urgent motion I filed on Feb. 24, 2022. The Notice of Motion is attached for reference.

For a motion hearing, at least I could receive the digital court recording of the motion hearing.

But for a case management conference, I receive neither the court's endorsement nor the court recording, which is what has happened for the case conference held on Feb. 15, 2002.

No, I will not attend the second case management conference scheduled on March 10, 2022

17The court then directed as follows:

If Mr. Sui does not attend the case conference on March 10, 2022, as scheduled, as directed by Justice Corbett, the court may lift the stay of the eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board pending appeal and/or dismiss the appeal for failure to follow case management directions.

The conference will proceed as scheduled.

18Mr Sui responded as follows:

I will not attend the second case management conference scheduled on March 10, 2022. I've been requesting the court's endorsement for the case management conference held on Feb. 15, 2022. But no case management directions have been issued so far pursuant to section 23 of Canada Evidence Act. Therefore I don't have any legitimate court's directions to follow after the first case management.

The intention of the second case management conference scheduled on March 10, 2022 is to override the decisions made by Justice Corbett right at the first case management conference, isn't it ?

I would like to take the matter to the Court of Appeal for Ontario if the Divisional Court lifts the stay of the eviction order or dismisses the appeal.

19The teleconference proceeded as scheduled on March 10, 2022. Mr Sui did not attend. This court’s endorsement from that day was as follows:

Mr Sui has been given clear directions by the court but refuses to follow them. He raises numerous technical and procedural objections to many aspects of the directions that have been given. The court ordered that this case conference be held to reinforce to Mr Sui his obligation to follow the court's case management directions and to explain any points that are still unclear to him. In response, Mr Sui repeated his objections to the process thus far and stated that he would not attend the case management teleconference today. The court then directed as follows:

If Mr. Sui does not attend the case conference on March 10, 2022, as scheduled, as directed by Justice Corbett, the court may lift the stay of the eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board pending appeal and/or dismiss the appeal for failure to follow case management directions.

The conference will proceed as scheduled.

Mr Sui replied, repeating that he would not attend the case management conference as directed.

Mr Sui is showing himself to be ungovernable.

The LTB granted the landlords' application on the basis that the landlords wish to use the premises for personal use(the landlord’s daughter). The landlords were entitled to vacant possession of the premises on February 28th pursuant to the LTB order. Mr Sui obtained a stay of this order by commencing this appeal.

A stay is an equitable remedy. In this instance, it is intended to protect the interests of the tenant pending his appeal before this court. A tenant is obliged to move promptly with his appeal when he is the beneficiary of a stay, and failure to do so is a basis on which the court may set aside the stay pending appeal. In this case, any delay in the appeal prejudices the landlord: it delays the landlords' daughter from moving in. There are no terms this court may impose to alleviate this prejudice, other than to direct that the appeal proceed without delay.

The tenant is showing an intention to delay, by raising numerous pointless procedural objections and failing to take basic steps such as getting the hearing recordings transcribed, as directed. He is also wasting the time of court staff with repeated vexatious emails pursuing issues on which directions have been given already. I will not, at this stage, terminate the appellant's appeal rights, but, in light of the tenant's conduct to date, and the likely delay in the appeal that will result from that conduct, I am satisfied that the tenant is abusing the process of the court to delay the appeal, causing prejudice to the landlord, and that this is a sufficient basis on which to lift the stay of the LTB's eviction order pending appeal. Order accordingly, which I will direct court staff to issue, enter and send to the parties without delay. The landlord may provide this order to the Sheriff's office and arrange for the eviction to be carried out.

Mr Sui has already indicated that he plans to appeal this order to the Court of Appeal. Mr Sui is advised that this order is interlocutory, and there is no appeal from it to the Court of Appeal. Mr Sui may seek a review of the order before a panel of this court. If he decides to do that, he should serve motion materials for a motion to review this order. Another administrative judge will case manage that motion, if it is brought; I remain seized of case management of the underlying appeal. Mr Sui should also understand that the order lifting the stay is not stayed by bringing a motion to review it, and the Sheriff may carry out the eviction order of the LTB. Mr Sui would have to obtain an order from another judge of the Divisional Court staying my order - and unless he has obtained such an order, the Sheriff is authorized and directed to carry out the eviction. I explained all of this during the case management teleconference and include it here so that Mr Sui has the same information as has been provided to the other parties.

In respect to the appeal itself, Mr Sui has had a copy of the recording of the LTB proceedings, sent to him by LTB counsel by email on February 18, 2022. Mr Sui is to obtain a transcript of this recording and upload it to CaseLines by April 8, 2022. Mr Sui shall email the court and the other parties to confirm when he has uploaded the transcript as directed.

The court’s order, issued and entered, lifting the stay of the LTB order, was attached to the email setting out the court’s endorsement.

20Mr Sui responded by email, taking the position that the order was a “draft order”, and asking when he might expect to receive the formal order.

21The court responded as follows:

Mr Sui has written to the court again vexatiously.

He states that the court order sent to him by the court is "not a valid court order."

Mr Sui is wrong about this. The order is, as it states, an issued and entered court order, and is a valid order upon which the Sheriff may enforce the eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, as the Sheriff has been directed to do by the court. The copy of the order was provided so that all parties would understand that the order has been issued and entered and the Sheriff may now proceed as directed.

22Mr Sui wrote again, twice, contesting the validity of the court order:

March 14, 2022, 1:49 pm

The document attached to your email dated March 10, 2022 is not a valid court order according to 59.04 of Rules of Civil Procedure.

Please let me know which statute the Divisional Court is based on to claim the document is a valid court order.

March 14, 2022, 9:40 am

The document attached to your last email dated March 10, 2022 is not a valid court order, which misuses GO-PKI to sign the court order.

If the attached document is intended to be a draft order as stated in the title of the document, then as the tenant/appellant for the ongoing appeal (Divisional Court file # 056/22), I do not approve the draft order

23At my direction, court staff responded as follows:

If you are uncertain about any points pertaining to your case, you may request a case conference with His Honour. Otherwise, we are instructed not to respond to any further emails from you on this topic.

24Mr Sui responded to this email as follows:

By "this topic" in your last email, do you mean the topic on the legitimacy of the purported court order attached to the your email dated March 10, 2022 ?

If the answer is yes, then can I send emails to Divisional Court regarding other topics for the ongoing appeal (Divisional Court file # 056/22) ?

25The court responded as follows:

Mr Sui has been given a deadline to upload the transcripts on which he relies by April 8, 2022. After that the court will give further directions for the appeal.

The court expects no issues respecting the appeal until the transcripts have been uploaded. If any arise, Mr Sui may request a case conference, briefly explaining the reason for the case conference. In other respects, staff have been directed not to respond to further emails from Mr Sui regarding the appeal itself until the transcript has been uploaded or a further case conference has been held.

Mr Sui may communicate with the court in respect to a motion to review Justice Corbett's order, if Mr Sui decides to do that, and any such motion will be case managed by a different judge.

26Mr Sui then wrote to the court asking (among other things) if he can proceed with the appeal without transcripts. The court responded as follows:

The court has already directed that Mr Sui is to have a transcript prepared from the recording sent to him by Mr Tam. He is to do as he has been directed. Any objection to the transcript produced in this manner may be raised with the appeal panel.

The court will provide further directions respecting the appeal after the deadline for providing the transcript.

27There were further emails on the transcript issue, each of which prompted a response from the court: “The court has provided its directions and will not respond to further emails from Mr Sui until he has complied with the court's direction.”

28Mr Sui did not comply with the direction to obtain, serve and upload to CaseLines a transcript from the recording provided to him by Board counsel by April 8, 2022. The court then issued the following direction on April 12, 2022:

Justice Corbett directs me to advise you as follows:

By direction on March 10, 2022, the court directed as follows (among other things):

In respect to the appeal itself, Mr Sui has had a copy of the recording of the LTB proceedings, sent to him by LTB counsel by email on February 18, 2022. Mr Sui is to obtain a transcript of this recording and upload it to CaseLines by April 8, 2022. Mr Sui shall email the court and the other parties to confirm when he has uploaded the transcript as directed.

Mr Sui objected to this direction and the court directed him, repeatedly, that he was required to comply with this direction, failing which the court may dismiss his appeal as abandoned, for failure to follow the court's case management directions.

Mr Sui has not complied with the direction to obtain, serve and upload the transcript to CaseLines by April 8, 2022, and to confirm to the court when he has done so.

Mr Sui may make submissions by email by April 20, 2022, as to why the court should not dismiss the appeal for failure to follow the court's case management directions.

29Mr Sui responded by stating hat he has brought a motion for leave to appeal from my decision of March 10, 2022. The court provided Mr Sui with information about the proper route for him to seek review of my order of March 10, 2022. However, the court repeated this information for Mr Sui, and gave him a further opportunity to respond to the court’s direction of April 12, 2022:

Mr Sui has advised the court that he has filed an appeal of this court's case management decision in the Court of Appeal. This court notes, for Mr Sui's benefit, that the proper course to challenge this court's order is a review motion to a panel of the Divisional Court pursuant to Courts of Justice Act, s.21(5). Further and in any event, an appeal to the Court of Appeal, or a review to a panel of this court, does not stay this court's order.

This court directed on April 8, 2022, as follows: "Mr Sui may make submissions by email by April 20, 2022, as to why the court should not dismiss the appeal for failure to follow the court's case management directions." If Mr Sui has any other submissions to make in response to this direction, he may make those submissions by April 20, 2022, after which this court will issue further directions.

Counsel for the respondent is asked to advise if the eviction has been carried out pursuant to the court's order of March 10, 2022, lifting he stay.

30Mr Sui responded as follows:

First of all, I have never downloaded the copy of recording sent by the LTB counsel Mr. Jason Tam. But on Feb. 25, 2022, I did receive the package delivered by Purolator Inc. which contains a CD recording purported to be the recording of the LTB proceeding on Dec. 21, 2021 but no certification of recording is included.

I object to Justice Corbett's instruction on obtaining the transcript based on the uncertified LTB recording.

On April 4, 2022, I moved out of the disputed rental unit due to the Notice to Vacate which commands me to vacate on April 4, 2022.

The Court of Appeal has accepted my Notice of Motion for leave to appeal from Justice Corbett's Order dated on March 10, 2022. And I'm appealing the Order dated on March 10, 2022 as the final order from Divisional Court. The motion file number is M53330.

31The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Sui’s motion for leave to appeal on July 18, 2022, and ordered costs against Mr Sui of $2,500.

32This is a textbook example of vexatious behaviour in litigation. Despite that, the court has given Mr Sui multiple opportunities to comply with the court’s directions.

33The court’s case management directions are not suggestions. They are not proposals. They are not invitations for debate, discussion or objections. Mr Sui’s agreement with those orders is not a condition precedent for their effectiveness.

34This court gave Mr Sui clear directions to obtain transcripts from the recordings provided by the Board. Mr Sui was warned that if he failed to comply with this simple, unambiguous direction, his appeal could be dismissed. Bringing an appeal in the wrong court (or bring a review motion in the correct court) does not affect the force of the order: he must still comply with it. Further and in any event, Mr Sui has not served his appeal materials and uploaded them to CaseLines following the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the motion for leave to appeal in July, nor has he served the transcripts that were to have been prepared and served by April 8, 2022.

35The appeal is dismissed as abandoned for failure to follow case management directions. Any party seeking costs of the appeal shall make the request by October 28, 2022, in the form of a brief email or letter to the court (no longer than the equivalent of a three-page letter). If the court is considering making an order as to costs, then it will give Mr Sui an opportunity to respond on that issue.

36This court prepared this dismissal decision in late April 2022 and incorrectly understood that it had been released to the parties at that time. It is released now, amended to refer to events subsequent to April 2022, and is effective for purposes of calculating appeal periods from the date on which it is transmitted to the parties by email. The failure to release this decision in April was only discovered when counsel for the LTB wrote to this court expressing concern about the pending appeal date of October 11, 2022 (the date the court had set for the appeal back in February 2022). The court apologizes to all parties as a result of any confusion arising from the failure to release this dismissal decision in late April.

D.L. Corbett J.

October 4, 2022