Court of Appeal for Ontario

Docket: M50869

Motion Judge: Nordheimer J.A.

Between

Delores Grey Moving Party (Appellant)

and

TD Insurance Meloche Monnex Responding Party (Respondent)

Counsel

Delores Grey in person

Jennifer Beresford for the respondent

Mark Wiffin as amicus

Heard: October 3, 2019

Reasons for Decision

[1] Ms. Grey brings this motion to extend the time for her to appeal the order of Speyer J. dated June 8, 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed the motion with reasons to follow. I now provide those reasons.

[2] In 2016, Ms. Grey commenced an action in the Small Claims Court in Brampton against the respondent. That action was dismissed on June 21, 2016 in response to a motion brought by the respondent. Ms. Grey did not appeal that dismissal within the required time period. In September 2016, she brought a motion to extend the time to appeal. An extension of time was granted to January 27, 2017. However, Ms. Grey did not file an appeal by that deadline.

[3] In February 2017, Ms. Grey brought a motion in Newmarket in which she sought an order that the respondent pay her $15,000 and that the Brampton proceedings be moved to Newmarket. That motion was dismissed by a judge of the Superior Court in Newmarket when Ms. Grey appeared late for the hearing.

[4] Ms. Grey sought to set aside the dismissal of her motion. I will not set out all of the procedural problems that occurred with respect to that effort other than to note that eventually the matter was heard by Charney J. on January 18, 2018. By an endorsement dated February 27, 2018, Charney J. dismissed the motion. He concluded that, since the dismissal of the Small Claims Court action had not been appealed, there was no existing proceeding in which Ms. Grey could obtain the relief she was seeking through her motion. In dismissing her motion, though, Charney J. said that Ms. Grey was at liberty to bring a motion for a further extension of time to appeal the dismissal of the Small Claims Court action but that any such motion would have to be brought in Brampton.

[5] Ms. Grey says that she does not feel safe attending in Brampton because of encounters she has had with the police in that region. She therefore objected to the term that Charney J. imposed that any further motion to extend the time to appeal had to be brought in Brampton. Consequently, Ms. Grey brought a further motion in Newmarket in which she again sought to have the Brampton proceedings transferred to Newmarket. That motion was heard by Speyer J. and led to the order that is the subject of the motion before me. The motion was heard by Speyer J. in her capacity as a single judge of the Divisional Court. It is not clear on the record before me why the motion was heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court as opposed to a judge of the Superior Court. Presumably the motion was put before a single judge because the relief being sought by Ms. Grey was procedural in nature. That, however, does not explain why the motion was in the Divisional Court.

[6] Ms. Grey contends that the motion heard by Speyer J. was, in fact, an appeal from the order of Charney J. That, however, is clearly not correct for two reasons. First, any appeal from the order of Charney J. would have had to have been heard by a panel of the Divisional Court, not a single judge of that court such as Speyer J. Second, in her endorsement, Speyer J. expressly states that she is not hearing an appeal from the order of Charney J. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why she dismissed Ms. Grey's motion. Speyer J. concluded that Ms. Grey's motion was simply an effort to re-litigate the issues that Charney J. had determined.

[7] Given that result, any appeal of the order of Speyer J. would have to be to a panel of the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. It does not lie to this court. That result means that I do not have jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for Ms. Grey to appeal since this court does not have jurisdiction to hear any such appeal.

[8] It is for this reason that I dismissed Ms. Grey's motion. In the circumstances, I would not make any order as to costs. In fairness, the respondent did not seek costs.

I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.