Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Olumide v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 ONCA 941

Date: 2016-12-14

Docket: M47151 (C62798)

Before: Cronk, Juriansz and van Rensburg JJ.A.

Between:

Ade Olumide

Appellant/Moving Party

and

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario

Respondent/Respondent

Counsel:

Ade Olumide, acting in person

Domenic Polla, for the respondent

Heard: December 12, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The moving party, Ade Olumide, a self-represented litigant, moves to vary the order of Hourigan J.A. of this court dated November 2, 2016. By that order, Hourigan J.A. declined: i) to direct the Deputy Registrar of this court to “issue” a notice of appeal from the order of Pollak J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 12, 2016; ii) to grant a declaration that a previous order of this court, dated September 25, 2015, did not operate to preclude Mr. Olumide from seeking to appeal the vexatious litigant order made against him by Dunphy J. of the Superior Court, dated October 17, 2016; and iii) to consolidate Mr. Olumide’s proposed appeal from Pollak J.’s order with his pending appeal from Dunphy J.’s order.

[2] We conclude that the motion to vary must be dismissed.

[3] The grounds advanced by Mr. Olumide in support of his motion relate to his continuing pursuit of declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality and proper interpretation of specific legislation. Those issues have no bearing on the matters dealt with by Hourigan J.A. Nor are they properly before this panel. Simply put, Mr. Olumide has failed to identify any sustainable legal basis on which to vary or otherwise interfere with Hourigan J.A.’s order. None of the relief now sought by Mr. Olumide arises from or concerns the matters dealt with by Hourigan J.A.

[4] Further, and in any event, we note that Hourigan J.A. dealt directly with the issues actually advanced in oral argument before him by Mr. Olumide – namely, items ii) and iii) set out above. We see no error in his reasoning or disposition of those issues. Indeed, we agree with his rulings and his reasoning.

[5] We also note that, contrary to this court’s order dated September 25, 2015 in court file M44527 (M43691), Mr. Olumide appears to have brought this motion against the Crown without leave of this court. He was not entitled to do so. On this ground, as well, this motion fails.

[6] The motion to vary is therefore dismissed. We make no order as to costs.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”