Spears v. Haugen, 2007 ONCA 568

CITATION: Spears v. Haugen, 2007 ONCA 568

DATE: 20070820

DOCKET: C46814

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

ROSENBERG, ARMSTRONG and JURIANSZ JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

PATRICIA ANNE SPEARS

Applicant (Appellant)

and

RANDOLPH BERTRAM HAUGEN

Respondent

and

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Respondent

and

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Respondent

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO

Respondent

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE OF ONTARIO

Respondent

Patricia Spears In Person

No one appearing for the respondents

Heard: August 16, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice D. Roger Timms of the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court) dated February 13, 2007.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals from the order of Timms J. dismissing her “14B motion” filed on February 9, 2007, instructing the court staff not to accept any further 14B motions “unless there is an actual proceeding properly before the court” and ordering that the appellant “is not permitted to bring any proceeding without the permission of a judge of this court”.

[2] The reasons for this order can be found in the motion judge’s short endorsement in which he points out that there is no actual proceeding of any kind before the court and that there has not been since September 23, 2003 when he dismissed “the then apparent proceeding”. As the motion judge said the 14B motion was filed “in a litigation void”.

[3] The appellant is self-represented and her materials are incomprehensible. It seems that the appellant alleges that she has been a victim of fraud by a number of agencies and her former spouse stemming from her divorce in February 1999. However, on the materials that the appellant has placed before us, we can see no possible basis for interfering with the motion judge’s order.

[4] Rule 14 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, provides that a motion may be made for a temporary order for a claim made in an application, directions on how to carry on the case or a change in a temporary order. Thus, as the motion judge pointed out, there must be some underlying proceeding. Since there is no proceeding pending in the Superior Court of Justice, the motion judge was right to dismiss the motion for directions and given the history of the proceedings he was right to refuse to permit any further motions being filed until some proceeding was before the court.

[5] For similar reasons, we see no merit to the appeal from the order requiring leave from a judge before any proceeding is commenced. The appellant’s materials are rambling and incomprehensible and it makes no sense to permit her to continue to file this kind of material until she is in a position to convince a judge that she has brought a proper proceeding before a court with jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed: “M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”