Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: National Bank of Canada v. Guibord, 2020 ONCA 677 Date: 2020-10-27 Docket: M51714 (C68496)

Before: Hourigan, Trotter and Jamal JJ.A.

Between:

National Bank of Canada Plaintiff (Respondent/Moving Party)

and

Marcel Guibord Defendant (Appellant/Responding Party)

Counsel: Michael S. Myers, for the moving party Marcel Guibord, acting in person

Heard: in writing

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On August 14, 2020, Harvison Young J.A. in chambers ruled that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal from a timetabling endorsement of Gomery J., dated June 23, 2020 and amended July 6, 2020, in the context of a mortgage enforcement proceeding, because the order under appeal is interlocutory.

[2] The defendant has filed a notice of motion seeking a panel review of Harvison Young J.A.’s order but has not perfected the motion. The plaintiff has filed its own motion under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 for a determination that the defendant’s appeal is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process.

[3] The timetabling endorsement under appeal is undeniably an interlocutory and not a final order. It merely provides a timetable for the plaintiff’s r. 21 motion. It does not determine the very subject matter of the litigation or any substantive right: Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375, at para. 16. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

[4] Nor does the defendant’s amended notice of appeal challenge the characterization of the timetabling endorsement as interlocutory. It relies instead on the claim that the mortgaged property is on unceded land — an issue not adjudicated in the timetabling endorsement and which is not properly before this court.

[5] We therefore agree with the plaintiff that the defendant’s appeal is frivolous because it is completely devoid of merit: R. v. Mehedi, 2019 ONCA 387, at para. 6, leave to appeal refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 280; Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board (2003), 2003 CanLII 7815 (ON CA), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 657 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 14.

[6] The appeal is quashed for want of jurisdiction.

[7] If the parties are unable to resolve the costs of this motion and the appeal, the plaintiff may file a bill of costs and written submissions of no more than two pages within 10 days of this decision. The defendant may file a bill of costs and written submissions of no more than two pages within 20 days of this decision.

“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“M. Jamal J.A.”