Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2017-09-08 Docket: M48022
Judges: Watt, Huscroft and Trotter JJ.A.
Parties
Between
Katherine Lin Plaintiff (Moving Party)
and
Eric Fleury and Gloria Ann Defendants (Responding Parties)
Representation
Katherine Lin, acting in person
Georgia Tanner, for the responding parties
Heard in writing: August 28, 2017
On motion for leave to appeal and request for summary dismissal under Rule 2.1.01.
Reasons for Decision
[1] Motion for Leave to Appeal
Katherine Lin has filed a Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal to this court from a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court who quashed her appeal to that court for want of jurisdiction. The order was made at the request of the respondent under r. 2.1.01(1).
[2] Judicial Review
On July 10, 2017, a single judge of this court reviewed the file in this case. The review canvassed all available materials including a request by the respondent for a review under r. 2.1.01(1). The single judge directed that the request, as well as the motion for leave to appeal, be referred to a panel of the court for determination.
The Original Claim
[3] Statement of Claim
Katherine Lin issued a claim against Eric Fleury and Gloria Ann seeking damages of $50,000 from Fleury and $300,000 from Ann. A generous reading of the claim is unrevealing of any recognizable cause of action of how the conversations and incidents recounted in it have caused Ms. Lin any damage.
Proceedings in the Trial Court
[4] Superior Court Stay and Notice
On May 19, 2017, a judge of the Superior Court of Justice stayed the action and directed the Registrar to send a notice in Form 2.1A to Ms. Lin advising her that the court was considering dismissing her action under r. 2.1 on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.
[5] Dismissal with Costs
On May 30, 2017, after reviewing further material provided by Ms. Lin, the judge of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action with costs.
Proceedings in the Divisional Court
[6] Notice of Appeal and Rule 2.1.01 Request
About one week later, Ms. Lin filed a Notice of Appeal in the Divisional Court. Once again, the respondent invoked r. 2.1.01(1) and asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
[7] Quashing of Appeal
On June 9, 2017, a single judge of the Divisional Court, satisfied that the amounts involved exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of that court, quashed the appeal.
Proceedings in this Court
[8] Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal
By Notice of Motion dated June 15, 2017, Ms. Lin sought leave to appeal to this court from the order of the single judge quashing her appeal to the Divisional Court.
[9] Respondents' Request for Dismissal
Once again, the respondents invoke r. 2.1.01(1) and seek dismissal of Ms. Lin's appeal on the grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court's process.
[10] Dispensing with Notice and Written Submissions
In light of the history of this proceeding, in particular, the failure of the statement of claim to reveal any recognizable cause of action, we have determined that it is appropriate to dispense with the requirements of notice and written submissions under r. 2.1.01(3).
[11] Decision
We are satisfied that the motion for leave to appeal is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. The Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Ms. Lin's appeal because the amounts claimed exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of that court. The motion for leave is dismissed under r. 2.1.01(1).
[12] Restriction on Future Proceedings
Ms. Lin is not to commence any further motions or other proceedings in respect of this matter in this court without leave in writing first being sought and obtained from a panel of this court.
"David Watt J.A."
"Grant Huscroft J.A."
"G.T. Trotter J.A."