COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Hill v. Cambridge (City), 2023 ONCA 164

DATE: 20230307

DOCKET: COA-23-OM-0027

Roberts J.A. (Motion Judge)

BETWEEN

Sandra Hill

Appellant (Moving Party)

and

The Corporation of the City of Cambridge and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Jeffery Lem, Director of Land Titles, Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, Assessment Review Board and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Pinebush Business Park GP Inc. known as Gateway Business Campus GP Inc., Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Adrian Peter Hartog, a solicitor, Irwin Duncan, a solicitor, Kelly Yerxa, a former City of Cambridge solicitor, Steven D.E. Matheson, a former City of Cambridge solicitor, the Estate of George Voisin, the applicant’s former solicitor, Law Society Ontario, Professional Engineers Ontario, the Estate of Edward Bruce Witmer, 492548 Ontario Limited, Simon Poladian, Poladian Holdings Inc. Simon Poladian, Myron Matlow, in c/o of 2399099 Ontario Inc., Suncor Energy Inc. formerly Petro Canada, Constance Cosman (nee Connie Keleher)

Respondents (Responding Parties)

Counsel:

Sandra Hill, in person

James H Bennett, for the City of Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo, Kelly Yerxa and Steve Matheson

Ram Rammaya, for Jeffrey Lem, Director of Land Titles

Valerie Crystal, for the Assessment Review Board

Nancy Roberts and Rohan Shah, for Gateway Business Campus, Suncor Energy Inc. and Adrian Peter Hartog

Patricia Betts and Ladi Onayemi, for Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

Paul Le Vay, for the Law Society of Ontario and Estate of George Voisin

Steven D. E. Matheson, for the Estate of Edward Bruce Witmer

Emily C. Durst, for the respondents, 4928548 Ontario Limited, Simon Poladian and Poladian Holdings Inc.

Allyson Amster, for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Heard: February 16, 2023, by videoconference

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The moving party, Sandra Hill, has brought several proceedings against numerous individual, corporate, regulatory and government defendants in which she has claimed millions of dollars in damages based on allegations of fraud with respect to her or her family’s title to a properly municipally known as 420 Pinebush Road, Cambridge, Ontario. These proceedings have all been dismissed.

[2] Ms. Hill seeks an extension of time to file notices of appeal from two orders: the order of G.E. Taylor J. dated November 3, 2017 in her first action; and the order of Sloan J. dated December 10, 2021 in her application. Ms. Hill commenced these proceedings in her name and in the name of her corporation, Hill Real Estate. Not all the defendants in her first action are respondents in her application.

[3] These orders dismissed her first two proceedings as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. In his December 10, 2021 order, Sloan J. also ordered that Ms. Hill was precluded from bringing any further proceedings involving the same property without leave of the court. As a result of these two orders, the subsequent proceedings and motions that Ms. Hill attempted to bring without leave involving the same subject matter and parties were dismissed.

[4] The overarching consideration on this motion is whether the justice of the case warrants the extension. Relevant factors informing this determination generally include: whether Ms. Hill had the intention to appeal within the requisite period for commencing an appeal; the length of and explanation for the delay in appealing; any prejudice to the responding parties because of the delay; and the merits of the appeal: Sabatino v. Posta Ital Bar Inc., 2022 ONCA 208, at para. 11.

[5] I am not persuaded that the justice of the case requires the extension sought by Ms. Hill.

[6] There is no evidence that Ms. Hill evinced an intention to appeal within the relevant period for appealing either order. Indeed, any intention is undermined by the extremely lengthy delay in seeking to appeal either the 2017 or 2021 orders, for which no reasonable explanation or excuse has been proffered. Ms. Hill did not serve her notice of motion to extend the time for appealing until February 2023. The prejudice to the right of the responding parties’ reasonable expectation to finality if these appeals were permitted to proceed after such a lengthy period of delay is obvious. Moreover, the prejudice to the responding parties is exacerbated by the lack of any merit to the proposed appeals and the difficulty in deciphering Ms. Hill’s proposed grounds of appeal that mirror the unclear allegations in her pleadings.

[7] In assessing the merits of Ms. Hill’s proposed appeals, I must determine whether the appeals have so little merit that she should be denied the important right of appeal: Sabatino, at para. 20. I have determined that is the case here.

[8] In his November 3, 2017 endorsement dismissing Ms. Hill’s first action, G.E. Taylor J. described Ms. Hill’s written submissions and her statement of claim as “incomprehensible”. He also noted that, contrary to his direction that submissions do not exceed 10 pages, her submissions were 19 pages.

[9] In his December 10, 2021, Sloan J., characterized Ms. Hill’s application against “a dizzying number of defendants/respondents” as an attempt to do an “end run” around G.E. Taylor J.’s dismissal of her action that involved the same property. He concluded that her application was “likely frivolous and vexatious” and “[i]n any event, it is certainly an abuse of process”, including for the following reasons:

Nowhere in either of the applicants’ rambling applications/claims, do they succinctly set out what real property they are referring to or at least I have not been [able] to find it. They do however refer to 420 Pine Bush Rd., Cambridge, ON.

Similar to the first action [dismissed by G.E. Taylor, J.], this action is a rambling 140 page application augmented by 2 exhibit books which are approximately 3 inches thick. The application seeks breathtaking damages in the amounts of $26,275,000 and $141,325,000.

The claims are difficult to follow but leave no doubt that they are similar if not identical to the claims already dealt with by Justice Taylor.

[10] As a result, Sloan J. dismissed the application and ordered that Ms. Hill (and her corporation) were precluded from bringing any further applications or actions respecting the 420 Pine Bush Road property, without leave of the court.

[11] I have not been able to find Ms. Hill’s notices of appeal in her motion materials or in the court file. However, she has detailed the merits and particulars of her claims and her complaints against the orders made by G.E. Taylor J. and Sloan J. in her motion materials.

[12] I have reviewed Ms. Hill’s pleadings in her dismissed action and application. I have reviewed her 22-page notice of motion and 104-paragraph supporting affidavit with over two hundred pages of appended documents. They all repeat bald and unclear complaints of fraud and misconduct against the respondents. There are no properly pleaded causes of actions or particulars that permit me to understand the basis of Ms. Hill’s claims. Ms. Hill’s pleadings on their face and the manner in which she has conducted these proceedings all bear the hallmarks of frivolous and vexatious proceedings that are also an abuse of process. Nor does Ms. Hill articulate any reversible errors made by G.E. Taylor J. or Sloan J. I see no reversible error. The orders made by G.E. Taylor J. and Sloan J. are amply supported and were open to them to make. Ms. Hill’s proposed appeals are devoid of merit and have no prospect of success.

[13] In my view, this is one of those occasions where the lack of merit in these proposed appeals is so clear-cut that, having regard to this factor on its own, and when considered in combination with the other factors that I have just considered, leave to extend the time for appealing should not be granted: Sabatino, at para. 21.

[14] As alternative relief to an extension of time, Ms. Hill seeks an order “expunging” the 2017 and 2021 orders, as well as the other orders made in the other related proceedings that were also dismissed. As a single judge of the Court of Appeal, I have no jurisdiction to grant such relief.

Disposition

[15] Accordingly, Ms. Hill’s motion is dismissed.

[16] If the responding parties are seeking costs of this motion, they may deliver brief submissions of no more than one page each, plus a costs outline, within seven days of the release of these reasons.

[17] Ms. Hill may deliver her position in response to the responding parties’ costs submissions in one document that shall not exceed five pages.

[18] Any submission by any party that exceeds these page limits will not be considered.