Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000513-0000
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: XIN YAN, Appellant
AND:
ONTARIO SERVICES OF MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION, HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, AND MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents
BEFORE: Justice Sharon Shore
COUNSEL: Xin Yan, (Self-Represented) Wan Yao Chen, Counsel for the Respondents
HEARD: May 25, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1Xin Yan is appealing the Small Claims Court decision of Wheatly D.J., dated June 6, 2025, striking the two actions commenced by the appellant against the respondents.
2For the reasons below, the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable to the respondent.
Background:
3On August 7, 2020, the appellant was charged with failing to stop at a stop sign, under the Highway Traffic Act. On October 4, 2022, he plead guilty and was fined $60.
4On June 5, 2024, the appellant requested his three-year driving record. The conviction was listed as October 4, 2022. The appellant believes that the date of this record is wrong.
5On June 7, 2024, the appellant commenced the first claim, against “Ontario Services of Ministry of Transportation (MOT)”, seeking to have his driving record corrected, and seeking reimbursement for the additional car insurance he had to pay, and damages.
6At the time, a summer student at the Crown Law Office – Civil, was assigned to the matter. Following various threats by the appellant alleging that representation by the student was “illegal” and would be reported to the Law Society, an articling student was assigned to the file.
7On August 23, 2024, the appellant served his second claim, alleging that the articling student and the summer student could not represent the respondents in the first claim. The Ministry of Attorney General was named as the defendant.
8The respondent brought a motion to strike the claims. The motion was adjourned several times to accommodate the appellant but ultimately heard by D.J. Wheatly on June 6, 2025.
9The first claim was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide 60-days notice of his claim as required under s.18 of the Crown Liability Proceedings Act and, even if proper notice was provided, the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Crown.
10The second claim was dismissed because the Ministry of Attorney General was named as the defendant, (the Ministry of the Attorney General is not a legal entity capable of being sued) and because the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
11The appellant’s grounds of appeal are as follows:
- He was denied procedural fairness and natural justice;
- His case was improperly dismissed;
- The court failed to identify the appropriate party; and
- The motion judge disregarded Timms D.J.’s interim decision.
12Each of the grounds will be addressed below.
13During the appeal, the appellant made a significant issue as to whether Ms. Chen, a lawyer called to the bar, could represent the parties. The appellant was so indignant when the Court advised that he was not to interrupt Ms. Chen during her responding submissions, even if he felt that she was not qualified to represent the Crown, that he abruptly left the courtroom and did not return. Before leaving, he was advised that the case would still be heard in his absence. Nevertheless, he chose to leave. The hearing continued in his absence.
Standard of Review
14The standard of review on a pure question of law is correctness. Findings of fact are reviewable on the standard of a "palpable and overriding error", meaning it is a plain an obvious error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 262, at paras. 8, 10.
15Exercises of discretion by a deputy judge on procedural questions are to be reviewed on the basis of a legal error (considered to be an error in principle), a palpable and overriding factual error, or a failure to exercise discretion judicially: Canada (Transportation Safety Board) v. Carroll‑Byrne, 2022 SCC 48, [2022] 3 S.C.R. 515, at para. 41.
16Procedural fairness is a question of law that is reviewed on a correctness standard: Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, 470 D.L.R. (4th) 328, at paras. 27, 30
Analysis:
No denial of procedural fairness:
17The appellant does not set out any reasons why the procedure was unfair or why he submits he was denied natural justice. His appeal cannot succeed on this ground.
No errors in decision:
18Under r. 12.02 (1) of the Small Claims Court Rules, O. Reg. 258/98, the court may, on motion, strike out or amend all or part of any document that,
- discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence;
- is inflammatory, a waste of time, a nuisance or an abuse of the court's process.
Claim #1:
19As the motion judge correctly set out, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sched. 17 (CLPA), applies to all proceedings in Ontario against provincial government departments, including the MTO. The relevant sections are as follows:
14 In a proceeding to which the Crown is a party, the Crown shall be designated “His Majesty the King in right of Ontario”.
15 A document to be served personally on the Crown in a proceeding to which it is a party shall be served by leaving a copy of the document with an employee of the Crown at the Crown Law Office (Civil Law) of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
18 (1) No proceeding that includes a claim for damages may be brought against the Crown unless, at least 60 days before the commencement of the proceeding, the claimant serves on the Crown, in accordance with section 15, notice of the claim containing sufficient particulars to identify the occasion out of which the claim arose.
18 (6) For greater certainty, failure to give notice of a claim as required by this section renders a proceeding brought without such notice a nullity in respect of the claim, from the time the proceeding is brought.
20First, the Plaintiff named "Ontario Services of Ministry of Transportation" as a Defendant. Ministries of the Crown are not legal entities that can be sued. The Crown is liable for any torts committed by Crown servants. Therefore, if there was a viable claim, the proper defendant in this proceeding would be "His Majesty the King in right of Ontario" as set out in section 14 of the CLPA: Noddle v. The Ontario Ministry of Health, 2019 ONSC 7337, at paras. 19-20.
21The motion judge correctly found that the appellant failed to give 60-days notice and therefore his claim is a nullity. The abstract was requested on June 5, 2024, and the claim was made on June 7, 2024, and clearly the appellant failed to give 60-days notice. I find no error by the judge in this regard.
22The motion judge did recognize that the summer student erroneously changed the style of cause to list His Majesty the King as the defendant, which should not have been done. However, given that the action was being dismissed for other reasons, there was no order made correcting the style of cause.
23The motion judge also found that there was no cause of action. There is no dispute that the appellant plead guilty on October 4, 2022. The driving record is therefore correct- the conviction occurred on October 4, 2022. I find no error in this regard.
24Having made those findings, the motion judge correctly concluded that there was no reasonable chance of success on the action.
Claim #2:
25The primary basis for this claim was that representation by a summer student or an articling student was “illegal”. I find no error in the motion judge’s finding that there is nothing improper in the supervised summer law student or articling student representing the Crown in the Small Claims Court action and therefore no meaningful chance of success at trial.
26Under the Law Society Act, the term "person who is authorized to practise law or provide legal services in Ontario" includes "a person who is not a licensee but is permitted by the by-laws to practise law as a barrister and solicitor or provide legal services in Ontario."
27Section 62 (0.1) of the Law Society Act grants the Law Society of Ontario ("LSO") the authority to create by-laws governing students and prescribing individuals or categories of individuals who are allowed to practise law or provide legal services in Ontario without being licensed. An articling student is permitted to appear before the Small Claims Court. Section 34 of the LSO By-Law 4 provides that a student under article of clerkship may, without a licence, provide legal services in Ontario under the direct supervision of a licensee who holds a Class L1 licence.
28A summer law student is also permitted to appear before the Small Claims Court. Section 2.1(1) of the LSO By-Law 7.1 states that a licensee who practices law within the Government of Ontario may assign to a Canadian law student tasks and functions in connection with the licensee's practice of law.
29The Law Society of Ontario Rights of Appearance Framework specifies that articling students and law students enrolled in an accredited Canadian law school are permitted to appear on matters before the Small Claims Court. Counsel at the motion was supervised by Counsel at CLOC as noted in the transcript.
30The appeal cannot succeed on this ground.
D.J. Timms’s procedural order:
31The appellant submitted that the motion judge ignored the interim order of D.J. Timms, specifically that it was illegal for the students to be representing the respondents. He directed the Court to D.J. Timms’s endorsement, dated May 9, 2025. There is no reference in the endorsement to this issue and nothing in the endorsement to suggest that any order was made related to the issue of the student’s participation at Small Claims Court.
32The appeal cannot succeed on this ground.
Costs:
33The respondent is seeking costs of $4,000. I find this to be reasonable in the circumstances, including consideration for the Crown having sent a letter to the appellant, setting out all the procedural and substantive issues in advance of them incurring costs in preparing responding material and in light of the appellant’s unreasonable behaviour in court towards Ms. Chen.
Order:
34For the reasons above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the respondent costs in the sum of $4,000.00 inclusive.
Shore, J.
Released: June 2, 2026