COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Gledhill v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 ONCA 37

DATE: 20160115

DOCKET: M45882 (C61145)

Lauwers J.A. (In Chambers)

BETWEEN

Mark Gledhill

Plaintiff (Appellant/Moving Party)

and

Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”);

City of Toronto Police Service-Det. Debbie HARRIS #4847,

PC31 Brent Larmour #10393, PC Phillip Roman #5394;

PC Christopher Drake #9176, PC Ronald MacKay #99680,

PC11 Daniel Doyle #8799, Det. Alexander Wallace #9800,

Det. C. Ricci, #5156, Sgt. J. Douglas #1060,

PC1 Matthew Dodds #10295, PC1 D. Balachor #99798 (“MOS”),

PC1 Gregor Reid, #9088; City of Toronto-Police Service

Det. Andrew Taylor #5336, PC Ali Rezvani, #10047,

Det. Louise “Marie” Farrugia, #7084

PC Bobby Chia-Hu Huang, #9515, PL12 Mark Rebello, #8790,

PC Hao GE, #10130, PC21 Jennifer Taborski, #10490,

PC11 Don Laurel, #10271, PC 11 R. Figlarz, #90231, PC12 J. Morris #86904,

PC N. Mozolev, #9798, PC W. MacDonald, #10683,

PC1 Mike Kroustallis, #10069, Sgt. Scott Kingdon, #5423 (“MOS”);

City of Toronto-Police Service Brian Werner Maslowski, #7604 (“OIC”);

PC21 Nicholas Smith (“10747”), PC 12 Dharmendra Grewel (“8070”),

PL14 John Maciek, #4032 (“McNeil 2”), PC13 Adam Kirk Josephs (“739”),

PC14 Kelly Bruce Munro (“86990”), Sgt. Rhoel Ong (#5346) (“McNeil 1”),

PC Mark Franke (“10728”), PC Kiljut Gill (“8752”),

Sgt. M. Vandall (“7006”), Benjamin Ardiles (“8863”),

PC Suzie Boyce (“8072”) (“MOS”);

Better Living Homes, Inc., (“BLH”); and

Jeffrey Rana (“JR”); Dwayne Whiteford (“DW”);

KG Group & Sam Goldbrand (“KG”);

MikeGold Construction Ltd. & Jeffrey Goldband (“MGC”);

D&D Associates Paralegal Professional Corporation (“D&D”) & Salvatore Ursino;

Corsetti Paralegal PC and Cathy & Leo Corsetti (“Corsetti PC”);

Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”);

City of Toronto-Landlord & Tenant Tribunal Member

Jean-Paul Pilon (“PMOT”);

City of Toronto-Landlord & Tenant Board

Tribunal Member Sylvia Watson (“WMOT”)

The Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario (“MAG”) & Onelia Delgado (“OD”);

The Ministry of the Attorney General (“MAG”) & John Flaherty (“JF”);

Ontario Court of Justice (“OCJ”) & Marvin Zuker (“OMOJ”);

Superior Court of Justice (“SC”) & Frederick L. Myers (“SMOJ”);

The Ministry of the Attorney General (“MAG”) & and Joseph DORIA, Supervisor of Civil Intake, Motions & Scheduling Unit (“MOF”); The Ministry of the Attorney General & Bosco Mascarenhas, Case Management Coordinator (“MOF”)

Teresa Augusto, Group Leader, Motions & Scheduling Unit (“MOF”)

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (“MCSCS”)

& Ian McKinley (“IMK”)

INTERCON/GARDA WORLD (“INTERCON”) &

Brent Alan Dewell (“099452”), William Rodger (“10728327”),

Wagner Morilla (“103552”), Alexander Evanchick (“AE”),

Brett Stevan Humphrey (“609146”);

Paragon Security (“PS”) & Security Guard 1 (“SG1”)

and Security Guard 2 (“SG2”)

Dundee Realty Management Corporation & Michael Cole (“Dundee”)

Canderel Commercial Services, Inc. & Janis Braun

and Moses Aguirre (“Canderel”);

GWL Realty Advisors & Sandra Celli (“GWL”)’

Brookfield Properties Ltd. (“First Canadian”) & Roderick Blakey (“RB”);

Brookfield Properties Ltd. (“Brookfield”) & Philip Longton (“PL”),

and Unqualified-or-Absent-Authority (“John Doe 1, 2, 3, 4”);

Morguard Property, Management & The Holt Renfrew Centre (“Morguard”)

Steve Novak (“SN”), Scott Harris (“SH”) and

Absent-Authority Janitor (“John Smith”)

Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”);

City of Toronto TTC-Transit Enforcement Officer John Wray (“30075”),

Criminal Investigations Unit S/Sgt Daniel Patrick (DP”) &

Unidentified Operator (“7955”);

Defendant (Respondent/Responding Parties)

Mark Gledhill, acting in person

Kathryn J. Manning, appearing as amicus curiae

Judith Parker, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Andrew Davidson, for the respondent Toronto Transit Commission

Timothy Duggan, for the respondents MikeGold Construction Ltd., K & G Group, Sam Goldband, Jeffrey Goldband, Corsetti Paralegal P.C., Cathy Corsetti, Leo Corsetti, Better Living Homes Inc., Jeffrey Rena and Dwayne Witford

Damian Hornich, for the respondent Toronto Police Services

Heard: January 13, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Mr. Gledhill moves for an extension of time for filing a supplementary notice of appeal and for the perfection of the appeal. He also moves for directions and case management.

[2] On September 17, 2015, Dunphy J., for oral reasons given, issued vexatious litigant declarations against Mr. Gledhill in three actions, being Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Mark Gledhill, court file number CV-15-527244, Toronto Police Services Board. v. Mark Gledhill, court file number CV-15-527464, and MikeGold Construction Ltd., K & G Group, Sam Goldband, Jeffrey Goldband, Corsetti Paralegal P.C., Cathy Corsetti, Leo Corsetti, Better Living Homes Inc., Jeffrey Rena and Dwayne Witford in court file number CV-15-527141.

[3] On the same day, Dunphy J. dismissed the application in court file number CV-15-530145 brought by Mr. Gledhill against a large number of respondents who were the applicants in the applications for vexatious litigant declarations.

[4] As this court stated in Kallaba v Bylykbashi (2006), 2006 CanLII 3953 (ON CA), 265 DLR (4th) 320, [2006] O.J. No. 545, at para. 34, a person who has been declared to be a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”) like Mr. Gledhill, is entitled to appeal the declarations without leave. The court also held, at paras. 25-26, that the vexatious litigant is not permitted to appeal any other decision or order without leave of a judge of the Superior Court under s. 140(3) of the CJA.

[5] Mr. Gledhill issued a notice of appeal on October 15, 2015, but it only dealt with the application in court file CV-15-530145 that was dismissed by Dunphy J. He did so without first getting leave from a Superior Court judge as required by s. 140(3) of the CJA as applied by this court in Kallaba.

[6] On October 19, 2015, Mr. Gledhill filed an amended notice of appeal in which he tried to include the vexatious litigant declarations, not realizing that the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, did not permit him to tack on one or more appeals of different proceedings to an existing notice of appeal. The amended notice stated:

The appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from the judgments in matters blended and before the Honourable Justice S. Dunphy, dated September 17, 2015.

[7] On October 27, 2015, Mr. Gledhill issued a notice of motion for directions in which he asked for “[t]he Court’s direction respecting the proper procedure for appeal; an extension of time for filing of (amended) Notice of Appeal.” The motion for direction was heard by Chief Justice Strathy on December 9, 2015. His endorsement provided:

Mr. Gledhill has been declared a vexatious litigant - there are three separate orders to that effect in CV-15-527141, CV-15-527244, CV-15-527464. To the extent he wishes to appeal those orders, he must bring a motion for an extension of time to do so. He may not appeal the order in CV-15-530145 without leave of the Superior Court of Justice. His motion is therefore dismissed.

[8] On December 14, 2015, just after the decision of Chief Justice Strathy, Mr. Gledhill filed another notice of motion, in which he moved for:

Extension of time for filing of Supplementary Notice of Appeal and subsequent perfection of Appeal; directions and case management and all Plaintiff-Appellant’s matters before Justice Dunphy on September 17, 2015.

[9] On December 31, 2015, Mr. Gledhill issued what he called a supplemental notice of appeal in which he noted:

The appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from the final Orders (“judgments”) of the Honourable Justice S. Dunphy and CV-15-527141, CV-15-527244 and CV-15-527464, dated September 23, 2015.

He also sought leave to appeal to the court from the costs order in the application, being CV-15-530145.

[10] Regrettably, Mr. Gledhill did not follow Chief Justice Strathy’s directions, perhaps because he did not understand what the Rules of Civil Procedure required him to do in the circumstances.

[11] Mr. Gledhill has not obtained leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice to pursue the appeal of the dismissal of his application by Dunphy J. as required by Chief Justice Strathy. My Gledhill disputes the correctness of Chief Justice Strathy’s statement that: “He may not appeal the order in CV15-530145 without leave of the Superior Court of Justice.” But that statement is consistent with the law, as I have explained.

[12] Accordingly, the appeal in court file number C61145 must be struck. I do so without prejudice to Mr. Gledhill’s right to seek leave of the Superior Court of Justice to pursue that appeal.

[13] The Rules of Civil Procedure required Mr. Gledhill to issue notices of appeal each of the three vexatious litigant declarations separately, but he did not. He incorporated them into the application appeal in C61145, which is not permitted by the Rules.

[14] The Crown, supported by the other parties, argues that Mr. Gledhill is out of time in relation to his vexatious litigant appeals. Accordingly, I must assess the merits of his appeals. The Crown argues that there are no merits, since Mr. Gledhill is not quarrelling in his amended notice of appeal with the decision or reasoning of Dunphy J., but with the results of the underlying litigation. The Crown submits that I should therefore dismiss this motion for the extension of time.

[15] Mr. Gledhill is technically out of time in relation to the appeals, since he did not do what the Rules require in a timely way. However, there is no doubt that Mr. Gledhill’s intention throughout, acknowledged by the responding parties, was to appeal Justice Dunphy’s vexatious litigant orders. His confusion about what he needed to do explains both the timing and the structure of his appeals.

[16] I am not prepared to deprive Mr. Gledhill of the substantive right of appeal in these circumstances. I therefore extend the time within which Mr. Gledhill can appeal the three vexatious litigant orders to January 29, 2016, being CV-15-527141, CV-15-527244 and CV-15-527464. I direct Mr. Gledhill to serve and file separate notices of appeal, properly titled, in each of the appeals. The Rules of Civil Procedure regarding perfection will then apply in the ordinary course. I would expect the three appeals to be heard together.

[17] I see no reason to require case management and I dismiss Mr. Gledhill’s request for the appointment of a case management judge.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”