COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2025 ONCA 90

DATE: 20250205

DOCKET: COA-24-OM-0326

Tulloch C.J.O., Paciocco and Nordheimer JJ.A.

BETWEEN

MD Ahasanullah Chowdhury

Moving Party

and

Unity Health Toronto and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

Responding Parties

MD Ahasanullah Chowdhury, acting in person

Daniel Girlando, for the respondent, Unity Health Toronto

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 appeal from the order of Justice Wendy M. Matheson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 4, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 5508.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Counsel for Unity Health Toronto sought a dismissal, pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, of Mr. Chowdhury’s motion for leave to appeal. Upon a review of the matter, the Registrar was directed by the court to send notice to the moving party that it was considering the r. 2.1 request. The moving party then sent two emails to the court in response to the r. 2.1 notice but neither email addressed the substance of the r. 2.1 request.

[2] The moving party is seeking leave to appeal from the order of Matheson J. of the Divisional Court, dated October 4, 2024, that dismissed, also under r. 2.1, the moving party’s motion for leave to appeal to that court. Justice Matheson ruled that there was no jurisdiction in the Divisional Court to hear an appeal from three decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the moving party was challenging.

[3] As was the case before Matheson J., there is no jurisdiction in this court to hear an appeal from a dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, except in the very narrow circumstance where jurisdiction is improperly declined. That is not the case here. Justice Matheson was correct in finding that no appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

[4] The clear lack of jurisdiction is sufficient to render the motion for leave to appeal an abuse of process. The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed. We do not make any order as to costs.

“M. Tulloch C.J.O.”

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”