Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20240409 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-1097

MacPherson, Paciocco and Zarnett JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Alexander Shaulov Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Law Society of Ontario, Performance Assessment Group Inc., John Braham and Michael Williams Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Alexander Shaulov, acting in person Stephen Aylward and Karen Bernofsky, for the respondents Law Society of Ontario, Performance Assessment Group Inc., John Braham and Michael Williams

Heard and released orally: April 8, 2024

On appeal from the order of Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 18, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant Alexander Shaulov commenced a lawsuit against the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) after repeatedly failing the barrister exam that is a gateway to admission to the legal profession in Ontario. In his lawsuit, the appellant has added three parties that the LSO has engaged to create some of the exams that the LSO has administered (“the Non-LSO parties”).

[2] A case management judge, Vermette J. of the Superior Court, struck out the claims against the non-LSO parties. That order was affirmed on appeal. In a subsequent case management meeting, the case management judge said:

Since all claims as against the Non-LSO Defendants have been struck without leave to amend and it has been determined that they are not necessary parties, the Non‑LSO Defendants are no longer parties to the action. If the Plaintiff wishes to plead a totally new cause of action and seek relief against them, he requires the consent of the LSO and the Non-LSO Defendants or leave of the Court: Rule 26.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Neither consent nor leave has been obtained.

[3] The appellant seeks to appeal this decision. The respondents say that the appellant is in the wrong court; the case management judge’s decision is interlocutory in nature and an appeal must be taken to that court, with leave of that court.

[4] The respondents are correct. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The order from which the appellant appeals is interlocutory.

[5] The motion judge did not determine that the appellant could not bring the claims that he is seeking to restore against the Non-LSO respondents. All she held was that the appellant had taken the wrong procedure in making those claims. If he wanted to make the new claims under the auspices of his original action, he needed to seek either consent or leave. Indeed, the case management judge invited him to seek leave: “If the Plaintiff would like to bring a motion to obtain leave, this can be discussed at the next case conference.”

[6] The appeal is quashed. The respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal fixed at $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”