Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2024-12-17 Docket: M55517 (COA-24-CV-0159)

Before: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter and Zarnett JJ.A.

Between: Joanne Vaughan Applicant (Moving Party/Appellant)

And: Jimmie Chen Respondent (Responding Party/Respondent)

Counsel: Joanne Vaughan, acting in person Jimmie Z. Chen, acting in person

Heard and released orally: December 12, 2024

Reasons for Decision

[1] The moving party, Ms. Vaughan, filed a notice of appeal in this court from a Superior Court order that concerned an amount of less than $50,000. An appeal from that type of order lies to the Divisional Court, not this court. The record contains an email from the responding party dated March 12, 2024 advising Ms. Vaughan that she was in the wrong court.

[2] On May 28, 2024, Paciocco J.A. refused Ms. Vaughan’s request to extend the time to perfect her appeal in this court as the appeal was in the wrong court. He also refused to transfer her appeal to the Divisional Court, pointing out that a motion for that relief, which could be opposed, had to be brought.

[3] On June 6, 2024, Ms. Vaughan’s appeal was dismissed for delay by the Registrar.

[4] On October 4, 2024, Favreau J.A. dismissed a motion by Ms. Vaughan to set aside the Registrar’s order and transfer her appeal to the Divisional Court. By this motion Ms. Vaughan seeks to set aside or vary Favreau J.A.’s order.

[5] We see no error in principle in Favreau J.A.’s order, which involved an exercise of her discretion. In particular, we see no error in her conclusions that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the Registrar’s order as this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal, and that since there was no live appeal in this court, there was no basis for a transfer order.

[6] We do not accept Ms. Vaughan’s argument that Paciocco J.A.’s reference to the requirement for a motion to transfer meant that Favreau J.A. had to grant it when it was brought. Nor do we accept the argument that Favreau J.A.’s reference to the motion before her being without merit was an observation about the merits of the appeal itself. The merits of that appeal will be a matter for the Divisional Court, if Ms. Vaughan obtains an extension of time to appeal to that court which, as Favreau J.A. pointed out, she is free to seek.

[7] We also see no basis to interfere with the discretionary costs orders that were made.

[8] The motion is dismissed.

[9] Costs are payable by Ms. Vaughan to the responding party in the amount of $3,361.75 all-inclusive.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”