Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Craven v. Osidacz, 2014 ONCA 329

DATE: 20140425

DOCKET: C56950

BEFORE: MacPherson, Blair and Pepall JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Julie Craven, John Craven, Maureen Craven, Sean Craven and Louise Huzul

Plaintiffs (Respondents)

and

Michael Osidacz, Elizabeth Osidacz, Richard Chmura, Lisa Chmura and Lindsey Andraza

Defendants (Appellant)

COUNSEL:

Richard Chmura, appearing in person

Michael Jaeger, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: April 22, 2014

On appeal from the order of Justice Robert J. Nightingale of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 28, 2013.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant Richard Chmura appeals from the Order of Nightingale J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 28, 2013 granting in part the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. In his decision, the motion judge struck out several paragraphs of the appellant’s Statement of Defence.

[2] On the appeal, the appellant did not make oral submissions. He relied on his factum and the extensive record he had submitted.

[3] The appellant contends that the motion judge erred by striking out these paragraphs. In particular, he contends that the motion judge erred by striking out his defence of truth (paragraph 16 of the Statement of Defence) on the basis that this component of his defence amounted to a collateral attack on the factual findings of Arrell J. in related proceedings.

[4] We do not accept this submission. We agree with the motion judge that there was nothing in the appellant’s motion record that would have raised a genuine issue requiring a trial relating to the March 18, 2006 incident involving Julie Craven and Andrew Osidacz. In addition, we see no reason for interfering with the motion judge’s treatment of paragraphs 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23 of the Statement of Defence.

[5] In this appeal, the appellant is also seeking several other heads of relief that were not raised before the motion judge, including the reversal of previous orders of this court and the Superior Court of Justice, a declaration that all Ontario courts are biased against him, and the transfer of this matter to courts in Florida.

[6] There is simply no basis for granting any of this relief.

[7] The appeal is dismissed. The respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal fixed at $3600 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”