Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20220114 Docket: C68895

Judges: Doherty, Tulloch and Thorburn JJ.A.

Between:

Hristos Drungas Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

The Corporation of the City of Hamilton Defendant (Respondent)

Counsel: Hristos Drungas, appearing in person Stefan Juzkiw, for the appellant Daniell F. Bartley, for the respondent

Heard: January 7, 2022 by video conference

On appeal from the order of Justice L. Sheard of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 16, 2019, striking the appellant’s statement of claim.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The respondent, the City of Hamilton, moved for an order striking the appellant’s statement of claim and, alternatively, for an order dismissing the appellant’s action. The motion judge was satisfied the appellant’s action could not go forward for several reasons, any one of which would have justified the order made.

[2] The motion judge’s reasons demonstrate that she carefully considered the various arguments advanced by the parties before her. We agree with her analysis and her conclusions that the statement of claim should be struck and, alternatively, that if the appellant’s claim survived, the action should be dismissed.

[3] In particular, and in response to the thrust of the argument on appeal, we agree with the motion judge that the facts as pleaded do not establish a breach of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c.11. Nor does the claim provide any basis to find that a breach of the Act could give rise to a civil cause of action against the City by the appellant.

[4] The reasonable apprehension of bias argument is without merit. It was not pursued by Mr. Juzkiw in oral argument.

[5] The appellant has appealed the costs ordered on the motion. Although the appellant is required to obtain leave to appeal costs, we have considered his submissions with respect to costs on the merits. The appellant did not have the assistance of counsel when he filed his material on appeal.

[6] The costs order made by the motion judge, which addresses the costs of the action, was reasonable and we see no reason to interfere with it.

[7] The respondent is entitled to costs on the appeal. In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the respondent should have costs in the amount of $3,000, inclusive of disbursements and all relevant taxes.

“Doherty J.A.”

“M. Tulloch J.A.”

“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”