COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20240212 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0773

Benotto, Roberts and Sossin JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Tanya Rebello Applicant (Appellant)

and

Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario Respondents (Respondents)

Counsel: Tanya Rebello, acting in person James Stuckey, for the respondent Attorney General of Canada Sean Kissick, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario

Heard: January 30, 2024

On appeal from the order of Justice Loretta P. Merritt of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 20, 2023.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”), has requested that this appeal be dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”) supports the request. We decided to hear the appeal on its merits. The order on appeal also concerns a r. 2.1.01 motion.

[2] The appellant brought an application against Canada and Ontario seeking: (1) a declaration that the respondents created a justice system that is in disrepute and have breached ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (2) a declaration that the respondents have obligations to implement a court system that prevents breaches of Charter rights and denials of access to justice; and (3) an order requiring the respondents to implement an effective justice system.

[3] Ontario moved under r. 2.1.01(1) to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. Ontario argued that the same allegations had been raised in several other proceedings commenced by the appellant, including:

• Rebello v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 1544;
• Rebello v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 601;
• Rebello v. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2020 HRTO 533;
• Rebello v. Canada (Justice), 2023 FCA 67;
• Rebello v. Canada (Justice), 2021 FC 275;
• Rebello v. Canada (Justice), 2019 FC 1171;
• Rebello v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3752;
• Rebello v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2020 HRTO 688;
• Rebello v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2020 HRTO 834; and
• Rebello v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, 2018 ONSC 4776. [1]

[4] The motion judge ordered that the appellant would not have the opportunity to make submissions on why the application should not be dismissed, as they would be of no assistance. She determined that the present application is an attempt to relitigate similar allegations by attacking the judicial system itself. The motion judge referred to Rebello v. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2020 HRTO 533, where the appellant had unsuccessfully made allegations that justices of the Superior Court of Justice had adjourned or dismissed motions, granted orders without her present, noted her in default, struck her action, and awarded costs against her. In that case, the appellant argued that this was discriminatory and a denial of her right to natural justice. The Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found it was plain and obvious that her application could not succeed and dismissed it. The appellant also made allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias in cases such as Rebello v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 1544.

[5] The motion judge found that the appellant does not have standing, as she is not likely to gain any advantage besides seeking the satisfaction of righting an alleged wrong. She further held that the appellant does not have public interest standing: the case does not raise a serious justiciable issue, the appellant does not have a real stake in the issue, and the application was not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts. The motion judge determined that the issues were non-justiciable as they would require the court to opine on matters of government policy.

[6] The motion judge found that the application had no merit and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The appellant’s application was dismissed.

[7] The appellant submits that the motion judge erred in ruling that the application be dismissed on r. 2.1.01 without a hearing. Further, she submits that she was denied procedural fairness, because she was not allowed to respond to the r. 2.1.01 request. We do not agree. Rule 2.1.01 provides:

The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[8] The rule sets out a summary procedure, and the court has the power to proceed without submissions: see e.g., Ahmed v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 427, at para. 7. Subrule 2.1.01(3) specifically states that an order shall be made on written submissions “unless the court orders otherwise.” Given the multiple cases referred to by the motion judge, she did not err in exercising her discretion to proceed without submissions. Her discretionary decision is entitled to deference.

[9] The appellant further submits that the motion judge erred in dismissing the application against Canada, because it did not request the dismissal or file a notice of appearance. We do not agree. Although a party may request an order, the court has the power “on its own initiative” to stay or dismiss the proceeding under the rule.

[10] The procedure authorized under r. 2.1.01 is clear, the motion judge followed it, and we see no error or reason to interfere with her discretion.

[11] The appeal is dismissed with costs payable to Canada and Ontario in the amount of $500 each, for a total of $1,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”

[1] We note that, in addition to the proceedings listed by the motion judge, there are several other similar proceedings, including unsuccessful appeals and motions to seek leave to the Supreme Court.