COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Willmot v. Boutis, 2015 ONCA 72

DATE: 20150203

DOCKET: C59132

Hoy A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Brown JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Julie Willmot

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Paula Boutis, Iler Campbell, and the Law Society of Upper Canada

Defendants (Respondents)

Julie Willmot, acting in person

Jane E. Sirdevan, for the respondents Paula Boutis and Iler Campbell

Heard: January 23, 2015

On appeal from the order of Justice Alfred J. O’Marra of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 2, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the decision of O’Marra J. striking her statement of claim. She argues that the motion judge erred in concluding that the claim disclosed no cause of action and that the proceedings were an abuse of process because they sought to relitigate matters that had already been determined. The appellant also asserts that the motion judge erred in dismissing her Charter of Rights and Human Rights Code claims.

[2] There is no error in the motion judge’s disposition of the motion. The appellant’s action takes issue with the conduct of the respondent Boutis who acted as counsel for the Public Guardian and Trustee as the appellant’s litigation guardian in certain litigation referred to as the “Belleville litigation”. It is apparent from the pleadings and the appellant’s presentation to this court that her real dispute is with what transpired during the Belleville litigation, and its outcome. The settlement of the Belleville litigation was properly undertaken by the Public Guardian and Trustee as the appellant’s litigation guardian, and received court approval. The appellant pursued and exhausted her rights of appeal in those proceedings. The motion judge was correct in his characterization of the action commenced against Ms. Boutis and her firm as a collateral attack on the Belleville proceedings and an attempt to relitigate matters that were already determined in those proceedings.

[3] This was sufficient to dispose of the matter before the motion judge and is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. We would add that we see no error in the motion judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s claim for breach of her human rights and Charter rights, and his conclusions with respect to her claim alleging conspiracy.

[4] Finally, we would dismiss the appellant’s motion to introduce fresh evidence on the appeal. The evidence, which relates to the appellant’s ongoing concerns about the Belleville property, would not have affected the outcome of the motion.

[5] The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents in the sum of $6,500 inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.

“Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”