COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Buehlmann-Miyake v. Buhlmann, 2025 ONCA 131

DATE: 2025-02-21

DOCKET: M55632 (COA-24-CV-0854)

Pepall, Paciocco and Sossin JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Guido Buehlmann-Miyake

Moving Party

and

Eiko Buhlmann

Responding Party

Guido Buehlmann-Miyake, acting in person

Brian Ludmer, 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 Madsen of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated November 25, 2024.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Guido Buehlmann-Miyake (the “moving party”) has filed a motion for a panel review of an appeal management direction that was issued to remediate delays in the perfection of his appeal in a high-conflict family matter. The appeal management decision: (1) outlined required steps to perfection and gave guidance; (2) imposed a deadline on the moving party for filing proof that he had ordered the transcripts, and provided suggestions that the moving party could pursue to obtain financial assistance to pay for those transcripts; and (3) affirmed the requirement in s. 125(2) of the Courts of Justice Act that documents be filed in English, and certified, where necessary, by the certificate of a translator. In his proposed panel motion the moving party seeks an order providing an “appeal procedure without a transcript”, as well as “clarification” relating to the regulations for translation.

[2] On its face there are indications that the motion for review is frivolous and vexatious. Specifically, the moving party requested an in-court hearing “if the court can offer the necessary framework for a fair trial, such as at least interpreters, consideration of health restrictions, and even better, legal assistance for the preparation and writing”. The grounds outlined in support of the motion, which appear on their face to lack merit, include protests about the legal process, the conduct of the judges who have been involved in the case, and grievances about the conduct of the respondent and her “lying” lawyer. The moving party was notified of a court-initiated rule 2.1 motion and has not provided responding submissions.

[3] A rule 2.1 order staying a proceeding is to be issued only in the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleadings; it is not for “close calls”: Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87, at paras. 8-9, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 488. We need not determine whether this motion is vexatious because rule 2.1 also “serves an important role in screening out meritless [or frivolous] claims that drain the limited resources of the justice system”: Kokic v. Johnson, 2025 ONCA 4,at para. 6. This motion has no realistic chance of success.

[4] To begin with, it is not obvious that a panel even has jurisdiction to review appeal management directions or decisions of a judge of this court. While s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act provides for panel reviews of single-judge motion decisions, there is no equivalent provision providing for panel reviews of appeal management directions or decisions. As well, it seems that panel reviews of appeal management directions or decisions could undermine the purpose of case management conferences “to ensure the efficient conduct of the appeal”: Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“Practice Direction”),s. 8.2.

[5] Moreover, the motion for panel review is premature. A further procedural avenue remains open to the moving party to seek relief from the transcript requirements in the Rules: he can bring a motion for directions to the appeal management judge seeking this relief.

[6] Rule 61.09(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states: “If it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice, a judge of the appellate court may give special directions and vary the rules governing … the transcript of evidence”.

[7] Section 11.1(3) of the Practice Direction states:

Rule 61.09(4) permits an appellant to bring a motion to a single judge of the Court of Appeal for directions to vary the rules governing the material that must be served and filed to perfect an appeal. The moving party must satisfy the judge that it is in the interest of justice to grant relief from compliance with any of the Rules.

[8] Section 8.4 of the Practice Direction further provides that if a party to an appeal managed appeal seeks relief from compliance with any of the Rules or the court’s practice direction, “an order of the appeal management judge dispensing with such compliance is required”: Practice Direction, s. 8.4.

[9] If the moving party is unable to obtain the relief he seeks on consent, it remains open to him to bring a motion to the appeal management judge: see Practice Direction, ss. 8.4, 11.1(3).

[10] Leaving aside whether this court should even be permitting panel reviews of appeal management decisions, the appeal management decision in this case was entirely innocuous. The appeal management judge simply described the requirements of the rules and imposed a reasonable deadline for filing proof that transcripts have been ordered. The moving party’s request for relief from filing transcripts does not provide a basis for panel review given that the appeal management judge was not ruling on a request for relief from compliance. And the moving party has provided no basis for clarification relating to the regulations for translation. The motion for review is frivolous. It can serve no purpose because it cannot possibly succeed.

[11] The motion is therefore stayed pursuant to rule 2.1.02.

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”