COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Bishop v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 676

DATE: 20151006

DOCKET: C60149

Feldman, Juriansz and Brown JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Richard-Benjamin Bishop

Appellant

and

The Law Society of Upper Canada

Respondent

Richard-Benjamin Bishop, acting in person

Glyn Hotz, assisting the appellant

John F. Evans, Q.C., for the respondent

Heard and released orally: September 30, 2015

On appeal from the order of Justice James A. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 13, 2015.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant did not attend the hearing at which the motion judge granted the respondent’s motion to strike his Statement of Claim against the Law Society of Upper Canada because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

[2] The appellant has filed an affidavit explaining he failed to attend the hearing because he was not given 24 hours’ notice that the motion would be held on February 13, 2015. On that day the motion judge proceeded on the basis that he had received such notice. However, the appellant’s written submissions were before the motion judge and upon the motion judge rendering his decision, the appellant was advised he could seek a rehearing under r. 37.14(1)(b). He did not do so.

[3] In these circumstances, including the certainty of the outcome and the appellant’s failure to seek a rehearing, we are not persuaded he suffered any prejudice.

[4] The thrust of the appellant’s submissions before us is that he does not practice law, but provides assistance to persons with disabilities to complete forms and other such matters. These submissions may be pertinent to the Law Society’s investigation of the appellant and any review of any action the Law Society may take, but they are not pertinent to this appeal. This appeal concerns only the striking of his action as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

[5] The motion judge dealt with each matter alleged in the Statement of Claim and carefully explained why each claim had to be struck. While the motion judge’s reference to s. 9 of the Law Society Act may be misplaced, we agree with his reasons why each of the claims in the Statement of Claim had to be struck.

[6] We regard the motion judge’s costs award as too high in the circumstances. We would set aside that award and replace it with an award of $2,500, all inclusive. Otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.

[7] Costs of the appeal will be to the Law Society in the amount of $1,000, inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T.

“K. Feldman J.A.,”

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”