Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-02-08 Docket: C66139

Panel: Hoy A.C.J.O., Simmons and Pardu JJ.A.

Between

Byeongheon Lee Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Doc McGhee, McGhee Entertainment, Capital Security and Investigations, Canadian Tire Centre, Gene Simmons and KISS Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel

Byeongheon Lee, acting in person

Robin S. Brown, for the respondent Gene Simmons

Pierre Champagne, appearing via videoconference for the respondent Canadian Tire Centre

Heard and released orally: February 1, 2019

On Appeal

On appeal from the order of Justice Robyn M. Ryan Bell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 30, 2018, with reasons reported at 2018 ONSC 6463.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant commenced an action against the respondents, and others, as a result of his removal from a KISS concert held in Ottawa. The appellant appeals the October 30, 2018 order of the motion judge, dismissing his action against the respondents pursuant to rr. 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, on the basis that he had not abided by the Rules of Civil Procedure and had failed to pay outstanding costs awards.

[2] The appellant has not satisfied us that there is any basis for this court to interfere with the order of the motion judge.

[3] We reject the appellant's assertion that the motion judge's dismissal of his action against the respondents was unreasonable. She found that the "inescapable conclusion from the evidence in the record is that [the appellant] chose to ignore the costs orders". She found that the interests of justice overrode the general principle that a matter should be heard on its merits and required the dismissal of the appellant's claim against the respondents. The motion judge specifically considered the fact that the appellant is a self-represented litigant, and, as such, entitled to some accommodation and assistance. But she found that he had received "plenty", and was not entitled to abuse the system or the parties opposite, nor ignore the rules and orders of the court, without fear of any consequence. The motion judge balanced the competing interests and considered all relevant factors. There is no basis for this court to interfere with the exercise of her discretion to dismiss the appellant's claim against the respondents.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Each of the respondents is entitled to costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $2,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

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

"Janet Simmons J.A."

"G. Pardu J.A."