COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Gledhill v. MikeGold Construction Ltd., 2016 ONCA 570
DATE: 20160714
DOCKET: M46594 (C61649 & C61650 & C61651)
Juriansz J.A. (In Chambers)
BETWEEN
MikeGold Construction Ltd., K&G Group, Sam Goldband, Jeffrey Goldband, Corsetti Paralegal PC, Cathy Corsetti, Leo Corsetti, Better Living Homes, Inc., Jeffrey Rana and Dwayne Whitford
Applicants/Respondents (Responding Parties)
and
Mark Gledhill
Respondent/Appellant (Moving Party)
AND BETWEEN
Toronto Police Services Board
Applicant/Respondent (Responding Party)
and
Mark Gledhill
Respondent/Appellant (Moving Party)
AND BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Applicant/Respondent (Responding Party)
and
Mark Gledhill
Respondent/Appellant (Moving Party)
Mark Gledhill, in person
Judith Parker, for the responding party Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Damian Hornich and Natalie Kolos, for the responding party Toronto Police Services Board
Timothy Duggan and Douglas H. Levitt, for the responding parties Better Living Homes Inc., Corsetti Paralegal PC, Cathy Corsetti, Leo Corsetti, MikeGold Construction Ltd., K&G Group, Sam Goldband, Jeffrey Goldband, Jeffrey Rana and Dwayne Whitford
Heard: In writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The moving party, Mr. Gledhill, is unrepresented and some context is necessary to understand the motion and the material he has filed.
[2] There are three separate orders of the Superior Court declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. Initially, he did not appeal them but filed an appeal of the underlying substantive decision. The Chief Justice in an endorsement dated December 9, 2015 noted that he could not appeal that order without leave of the Superior Court of Justice but observed he did not require leave to appeal the three orders declaring him a vexatious litigant, but that he would require an extension of time to file those appeals.
[3] Mr. Gledhill then moved for an extension of time for filing a supplementary notice of appeal and for the perfection of the appeal. He filed a supplemental notice of appeal purporting to appeal the three vexatious litigant orders. In an endorsement dated January 15, 2016, Lauwers J.A. explained that the Rules of Civil Procedure required Mr. Gledhill to issue separate notices of appeal in each of the three vexatious litigant orders and granted him an extension of time to do so.
[4] On February 23, 2016, Feldman J.A. ordered that the three appeals proceed together and be heard together.
[5] On March 23, 2016, Benotto J.A. extended the time to perfect the three appeals to March 31, 2016. However, she noted that in oral submissions Mr. Gledhill had raised issues of bad faith on the part of all participants in the matter, including counsel and, to some extent, court administration. She made an order requiring him to obtain leave on a motion in writing granting him permission to bring any future motions.
[6] Mr. Gledhill did not perfect his appeals within the extended time granted by Benotto J.A. and the registrar dismissed them for delay on April 15, 2016.
[7] Mr. Gledhill then filed a notice of motion returnable on May 19, 2016 to reinstate his appeals but abandoned it after the responding parties delivered their materials. Subsequently he has filed another motion and several amendments of that motion that added to the relief sought a request for leave to bring a motion to reinstate the three appeals. The motion for leave to bring motions to reinstate his appeal is the only matter I can deal with.
[8] I have no doubt that Mr. Gledhill has always maintained an intention to proceed with his appeals. The material he has filed shows he has difficulty understanding and following required procedure, but I do not accept that is the explanation for his failing to perfect the appeals. On his motions he has expended a great deal of time and effort in filing voluminous material. Since he is capable of compiling material and filing it in court, I do not understand why he has failed to perfect the appeals.
[9] In addition, it is clear to me that Mr. Gledhill’s appeals are entirely devoid of merit. The manner in which he conducts litigation, the materials he has filed, and his oral submissions noted by Benotto J.A., leave no doubt that those appeals are destined to be dismissed. I am satisfied that the overall interests of justice are served by denying Mr. Gledhill leave to bring a motion to reinstate his appeals. Nothing would be served by permitting him to proceed.
[10] This motion in writing is dismissed. No order as to costs.
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”