Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2023-12-18 Docket: M54639 (COA-23-OM-0271)

Before: Doherty, Roberts and Paciocco JJ.A.

Between: Paul Alexander Robson, Respondent (Appellant/Moving Party)

And: Law Society of Ontario, Applicant (Respondent/Responding Party)

Counsel: Paul Alexander Robson, acting in person Rhoda Cookhorn, for the respondent

Heard: In writing

Determination

Determination pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, with respect to the motion to set aside or vary the decision of Justice Julie Thorburn of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated October 24, 2023, with reasons reported at 2023 ONCA 709.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The respondent, Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”), requests that the appellant’s motion to review the October 24, 2023 decision of a motion judge of this court be dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion judge dismissed the appellant’s motion to extend the time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal on the overarching basis that his motion for leave to appeal had no merit.

[2] The appellant submits that the motion judge misconstrued the grounds for his motion for leave to appeal, specifically, his jurisdictional challenge to the LSO’s commencement of an investigation into his former’s client complaint against him and the legitimacy of its investigator’s requests for production of documents from him.

[3] It is well-established that r. 2.1 is not for close calls. Rather, it is to be used robustly for the purpose of weeding out litigation that is frivolous, vexatious or abusive on its face and where there is a basis in the pleadings for resort to this rule: Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at paras. 8-9.

[4] To assist with its task, the court should be provided with a bound volume of any relevant background documents, such as prior issued and entered orders and the reasons for such orders, as well as relevant pleadings or other related documents: Simpson v. Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, at paras. 45 and 47.

[5] Other than the submissions in its letters of October 25 and November 21, 2023, and a copy of the motion judge’s October 24, 2023 decision, the LSO has not provided any other documents, such as the appellant’s motion materials before the motion judge or even his proposed notice of motion for leave to appeal.

[6] We are therefore unable to determine, on the basis of the submissions filed and the motion judge’s reasons, that the appellant’s motion to review the motion judge’s order is, on its face, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process and, therefore, whether r. 2.1 should be invoked in this case.

[7] The LSO’s r. 2.1 request is therefore dismissed without costs.

[8] The appellant must perfect his motion for review of the motion judge’s order within ten days of the release of these reasons. If the appellant fails to perfect his review within this deadline, his motion will be administratively dismissed. If the appellant perfects his motion, the LSO will have ten days to serve and file responding materials.

“Doherty J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”