Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2024-08-22 Docket: M55076 (COA-23-OM-0085)

Before: Nordheimer, Gomery and Wilson JJ.A.

Between: Linda Lou Graham Applicant (Moving Party)

And: New Horizon System Solutions, Capgemini Canada Inc., Oncidium Health Group, Peter Watson, Stepan Moskal and Anne Treacy-Barber Respondents (Responding Parties)

And: Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Respondent (Responding Party)

Counsel: Linda Lou Graham, acting in person Daina Search and Tim Schjerning, for the responding parties, New Horizon System Solutions, Capgemini Canada Inc., Peter Watson, Stepan Moskal, and Anne Treacy-Barber Greg McGinnis, for the responding party, Oncidium Health Group

Heard and released orally: August 20, 2024

Reasons for Decision

[1] Ms. Graham seeks a review of the decision of the motion judge that dismissed her motion to extend the time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court had dismissed Ms. Graham’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

[2] The motion judge found that there had been unacceptable delay in perfecting the motion for leave to appeal, including the failure by Ms. Graham to comply with earlier extensions of time that had been granted. The motion judge also found that the proposed motion for leave to appeal lacked merit since the decision below was entirely fact based.

[3] We do not see any error in the motion judge’s decision to deny the extension of time. In particular, we do not see any error in the motion judge’s conclusions regarding the unacceptable delay and the lack of merit in the proposed motion. In terms of the first conclusion, Ms. Graham was given a number of extensions of time, none of which were met, nor was any satisfactory explanation for that failure offered, such that more than a year had passed since the decision of the Divisional Court had been rendered. In terms of the second conclusion, the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal was entirely fact based which included a conclusion that Ms. Graham’s evidence was not trustworthy or reliable. The Divisional Court reviewed that decision and concluded that it did not raise any question of law or of mixed fact and law that warranted intervention. She similarly failed to do so before the motion judge nor has she done so on this review.

[4] A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination. Where the motion judge has made a discretionary decision, as in this case, the decision is entitled to deference and the reviewing panel will not interfere absent legal error or misapprehension of material evidence: Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, 138 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 20.

[5] Finally, Ms. Graham complains that she was not entitled to file certain supplementary material. Ms. Graham was subject to an earlier order of this court that set a deadline for filing all material for this motion. The material that was filed comprises some twelve volumes. There was no basis to allow yet further material to be filed, especially given the narrow scope of this review.

[6] The review motion is dismissed. The respondents, New Horizon System Solutions, Capgemini Canada Inc., Peter Watson, Anne Treacy-Barber and Stepan Moskal, are entitled to their costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $1,500 inclusive of interest and HST. The respondent, Oncidium Health Group, is entitled to its costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $1,500 inclusive of interest and HST.

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.” “D.A. Wilson J.A.”