Court of Appeal for Ontario

Court File and Parties

Date: 20240201 Docket: M54136

Before: Benotto, Roberts and Sossin JJ.A.

Between: Alex Martinez, Applicant (Moving Party) And: Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Respondent (Responding Party)

Counsel: Alex Martinez, acting in person Morvarid Shojaei and Miriam Saksznajder, for the responding party

Heard: in writing

Determination pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, with respect to the motion to set aside or vary the decision of Justice Katherine van Rensburg of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated March 10, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Mr. Martinez has commenced a motion for a panel review (the “Review Motion”) of the dismissal, by a single judge of this court, of his motion brought in the context of the court office’s rejection of his motion materials for leave to appeal. The responding party, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”), requests that Mr. Martinez’s Review Motion be dismissed under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, because it is, on its face, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. We agree and dismiss Mr. Martinez’s Review Motion.

[2] In 2019 and 2020, Mr. Martinez made various complaints to the OIPRD. His application for judicial review of the OIPRD’s decision not to investigate his complaints was subsequently dismissed by the Divisional Court. His motion materials to seek leave to appeal the dismissal of his judicial review application were repeatedly rejected by this court’s intake office because, as the motion judge found, he had failed to follow the relevant Rules of Civil Procedure and followed up with “various incoherent communications and materials, and unreasonable and inappropriate demands”. He was directed by court staff to seek an extension of time to perfect his motion for leave to appeal.

[3] The motion judge reviewed and applied the relevant factors in considering whether to grant Mr. Martinez an extension of time to perfect his motion for leave to appeal. While noting that he had promptly formed the requisite intention to proceed with a leave motion, the motion judge found that Mr. Martinez “did not take any appropriate steps toward perfecting the motion, and indeed, the current motion appears to be an extension of his inappropriate conduct throughout his dealings with this court”. She concluded that he had not addressed the deficiencies in his motion for leave and that he would not “be in a position any time soon to remedy his default and to take the steps necessary to perfect his motion for leave to appeal”. She determined that there was not any apparent merit to his motion for leave to appeal and that the proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave. For these reasons, she dismissed Mr. Martinez’s motion.

[4] As this court recently reiterated, “[i]t is well-established that r. 2.1 is not for close calls. Rather, it to be used robustly for the purpose of weeding out litigation that is frivolous, vexatious or abusive on its face and where there is a basis in the pleadings for resort to this rule”: Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 860, at para. 3, citing Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87, at paras. 8-9.

[5] This is not a close call. Even after giving generous allowance for drafting imprecisions by a self-represented party, Mr. Martinez’s Review Motion materials do not reveal any reversible error in the motion judge’s decision and contain scurrilous insults against the motion judge. His principal argument is that the motion judge misconstrued his motion: the motion he brought before the motion judge was not for an extension of time but rather a challenge to the court office’s rejection of his leave motion materials. He labels the motion judge’s decision as “bizarre” and a product of, among other things, “disability”, “cognitive issue”, “memory loss” or “judicial misconduct”.

[6] Without an order allowing for an extension of time, Mr. Martinez cannot proceed with his motion for leave to appeal. The motion judge adverted to the court office’s rejection of his leave motion materials and dealt with it appropriately in her consideration of whether to grant an extension of the time. Mr. Martinez has not identified any error in her decision.

[7] As such, the Review Motion has no prospect of success and is, on its face, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. We dismiss it under r. 2.1.

[8] In the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.” “L. Sossin J.A.”