Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-11-10 Docket: COA-25-CV-0192

Panel: Copeland, Wilson and Pomerance JJ.A.

Between

Richard Grey and Tracy Grey Applicants/Responding Parties (Appellants)

and

Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council Respondent/Moving Party (Respondent)

Counsel

Walter Stasyshyn and Wade Morris, for the appellants

Jordan Glick, for the respondent

Hearing and Decision

Heard and rendered orally: November 6, 2025

On appeal from: the order of Justice Andra Pollak of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 7, 2025, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 6817.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellants brought an application for prohibition to prevent a provincial offence prosecution in the Ontario Court of Justice for offences under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B (the "MVDA"). The respondent, who is the prosecutor, brought a motion to dismiss the prohibition application, arguing that it was frivolous and an abuse of process of the court. The motion judge granted the motion and dismissed the application on the basis that it was an abuse of process and had no prospect of success. The appellants appeal from the motion judge's order.

[2] We agree with the motion judge's conclusion. Prohibition is a remedy to address a lower court or tribunal proceeding without jurisdiction. None of the arguments raised by the appellants to challenge the prosecution are jurisdictional. The Ontario Court of Justice is the appropriate forum to determine whether the provisions of the MVDA under which the appellants are charged apply to the conduct alleged in the Information. Further, to the extent the appellants allege that the respondent as a prosecutor is engaging in an abuse of process, the Ontario Court of Justice is also the appropriate forum to raise that issue.

[3] The appellants' application for prohibition is an ill-conceived attempt to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Superior Court for non-jurisdictional issues which are properly decided at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The motion judge was correct in concluding that the prohibition application was an abuse of process and had no prospect of success.

[4] The appellants' contention that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate is without merit. Read as a whole, the motion judge's reasons are clear that she found that the application was an abuse of process and had no prospect of success because the grounds on which it was based were not jurisdictional.

[5] The appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent in the agreed upon amount of $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

"J. Copeland J.A."

"D.A. Wilson J.A."

"R. Pomerance J.A."

[1] The order is dated January 7, 2025, but indicates it was entered on January 15, 2025. The application judge's endorsement dismissing the application is dated December 6, 2024.