Court File and Parties
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Divisional Court
Re: Emad El-Guindy, Moving Party and Interrent Holdings Manager LP and Landlord and Tenant Board, Responding Parties
Before: Howard R.S.J., Edwards and Schreck JJ.
Counsel: E. El-Guindy, Moving Party, self-represented K. Ley, for the Responding Party, Interrent Holdings Manager LP E. Fellman, for the Responding Party, Landlord and Tenant Board
Heard: June 1, 2026
Endorsement
Endorsement
1This is a motion by Emad El-Guindy, pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to review the order of MacNeil J., made on April 15, 2026, quashing Mr. El-Guindy’s motion to have a member of the Landlord and Tenant Board held in contempt for lifting a stay entered by this court in relation to an appeal from an earlier interim order of the Board. Mr. El-Guindy submits that McNeil J., sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court at a case management conference, had no jurisdiction to quash the motion.
2In an endorsement released on March 24, 2026, McNeil J. had asked Mr. El-Guindy to make submissions as to why the contempt motion should not be dismissed “as outside the jurisdiction of this Court and/or dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process.” Mr. El-Guindy advised us during the hearing of the motion that he did make submissions on this issue during the case management conference.
Analysis
3While Mr. El-Guindy is correct that the Divisional Court has no inherent jurisdiction, a single judge has jurisdiction pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, to dismiss a proceeding on the basis that it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court. While McNeil J. did not avert to r. 2.1.02 in her reasons, it is clear that she was of the view that the contempt motion was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Her conclusion in this regard was undoubtedly correct, as a finding of contempt against a Landlord and Tenant Board member was precluded by the principle of adjudicative and judicial immunity: Stepanova v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2017 ONSC 2386 (Div. Ct.), at para. 23. We are satisfied that McNeil J. had the jurisdiction to make the order that she did.
4A motion pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act is not a hearing de novo and the panel can only interfere if the moving party establishes that the judge made an error of law, a palpable and overriding error of fact, or exercised his or discretion unreasonably: Douris v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency), 2025 ONSC 3504 (Div. Ct.), at para. 31. While Mr. El-Guindy submitted that the standard of review is unclear, we are of the view that there is no basis on which to intervene on any standard.
Disposition and Costs
5The motion is dismissed. Costs are fixed at $2500.00, payable by the moving party to the responding party, Interrent Holdings Manager LP.
Howard R.S.J.
Edwards J.
Schreck J.
Date: June 2, 2026