Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-12-21 Docket: C65245

Panel: Hoy A.C.J.O., Feldman and Paciocco JJ.A.

Between

Paul Alexander Robson Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

The Law Society of Upper Canada, Zeynep Onen, Mark Pujolas, Lisa Freeman and Jan Parnega-Welch Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel

Paul Robson, acting in person

Richard Watson, for the appellant (on one issue only)

Sean Dewart and Ian McKellar, for the respondents

Heard: November 13, 2018

Supplementary reasons to Robson v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 ONCA 944, released on November 23, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Reasons for Decision in this appeal of an order striking the appellant's fresh as amended statement of claim were released by the court on November 23, 2018: Robson v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 ONCA 944. The court allowed the appeal, except as it related to one of the respondents.

[2] Before the order was issued or entered, the respondents sent a letter to the court requesting it to re-open this appeal and withdraw, alter, or modify its decision. They argue that:

1. The court misapprehended the timing of the respondents' demand for particulars in a manner that led the court to wrongly find fault with the motion judge's reasons;

2. The court misapprehended the history of the appellant's bankruptcy proceeding in a manner that led the court to mistakenly conclude that the appellant could advance an allegation that the respondents made use of the bankruptcy proceeding in a malicious fashion; and

3. The court conflated oral submissions made by the appellant with the content of these pleadings in a manner that led the court to conclude that the appellant could advance an allegation that he was targeted by the respondents on the basis of his being a "thorn in the side" of the Law Society of Ontario.

[3] The appropriate procedure for any such request is by motion, not by correspondence. However, in order to save the parties further time and expense, we are prepared to deal with the issues raised in these reasons.

[4] We reject the second and third arguments made by the respondents.

[5] As to the respondents' second argument, the court did not misapprehend the history of the appellant's bankruptcy proceeding. We agree with the respondents that Doherty J.A. did not find that Lax J.'s "judgment was not correct and many of the facts relied upon her were inaccurate." The court did not state otherwise.

[6] As to the respondents' third argument, the court simply acknowledged the oral submissions the appellant made on appeal. The court did not conflate the appellant's submissions with the content of his pleadings.

[7] With respect to the first issue, counsel for the respondents now correctly points out the timing of the respondents' demand for particulars. As the respondents submit, they made their demand for particulars before an earlier motion, as a result of which the appellant's claim was struck with leave to amend.

[8] Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this is one of the rare circumstances where it is in the interests of justice to withdraw the reasons of the court and re-hear the case on the merits: Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 887, at para. 9. Regardless of the timing of the respondents' demand for particulars, we remain of the view that the motion judge erred in law by requiring an unnecessarily high level of particularization. The result of the appeal would have been the same. This is not a case where a serious injustice will result if the court refuses to re-open the appeal.

[9] The request to re-open the appeal in this case is denied.

"Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O."

"K. Feldman J.A."

"David M. Paciocco J.A."