Other Tribunals - ONCA

The applicant corporation sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal of a trial judgment dated June 27, 2025.

The non-lawyer representative sought leave to represent the corporation pursuant to Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge refused leave to represent the corporation, finding that the representative had repeatedly filed factums containing fabricated legal citations, non-existent cases, miscited authorities, false statutory provisions, and fabricated quotations.

The court held that while access to justice is a relevant consideration, the integrity of the justice system and the undue burden imposed on opposing counsel and the court outweighed such considerations.

The motion for extension of time was adjourned, and the corporation was directed to appoint a lawyer within 30 days or face dismissal of both the motion and the appeal.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order making permanent a temporary sealing order relating to psychometric testing documents that had been marked as exhibits during a 2012 personal injury trial.

The respondents sought to make the temporary sealing order permanent to protect the integrity of test procedures and materials.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in two respects: first, by attempting to seal documents that were no longer in the court's possession as of December 2017, and second, by failing to properly apply the Sierra Club/Dagenais/Mentuk test for confidentiality orders.

The court emphasized that the motion judge should have examined the specific documents and considered whether they were already in the public domain through trial evidence and reasons, and should have weighed the public interest in access to materials facilitating cross-examination of expert witnesses.

The corporate appellants moved to have their appeal restored to the hearing list and heard on the merits together with Sonia LaFontaine's appeal.

The appellants' appeal had been "unperfected" by court staff when non-lawyer representation was refused, despite the appeal having been previously perfected.

The motion judge found that the unperfecting lacked clear authority and that it would be more efficient and just to restore the corporate appellants' appeal and hear it together with LaFontaine's appeal.

The motion was granted with costs awarded to the corporate appellants.

The appellants sought a stay of a writ of seizure and sale pending an appeal of a vexatious litigants order, along with requests for six months to arrange financing and to lift a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The appellants were self-represented and had previously had their pleadings struck for non-compliance with court orders.

The court identified three procedural problems: the appellants lacked leave from a Superior Court judge to bring the motion, no appeal had been brought from the underlying costs order, and the appellants had not sought leave to appeal a default judgment of which they were unaware.

The court granted a limited stay of execution of the writ of seizure and sale until thirty days after the appeal of the vexatious litigants order was heard, and encouraged the appellants to retain legal counsel or seek pro bono assistance.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for one appellant, to require a mental examination, to remove counsel, to extend time to perfect the appeal, and to seal evidence concerning mental health.

The motion judge addressed the sealing and confidentiality issues under the two-part test from Sierra Club v. Canada (Minister of Finance).

The court ordered redaction of solicitor-client communications and certain historical medical information as reasonable alternatives to confidentiality orders.

However, the court declined to grant a confidentiality order for current observations of the appellant's mental state, finding insufficient evidence of necessity under the Sierra Club test.

References to a non-party's health information were also redacted as unnecessary and irrelevant.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant with extensive litigation experience, sought to review a decision by Justice Nordheimer declining to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeals for failure to perfect.

The appellant had filed seven appeals in response to a single order and failed to provide adequate reasons for the delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to review, finding no error in Nordheimer J.A.'s discretionary decision.

The court also denied the appellant's last-minute request for an adjournment based on medical grounds and Charter arguments.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant sought a review of a decision by Justice MacPherson denying an extension of bail.

The appellant moved for appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code and for an adjournment of the review, citing medical evidence of unfitness to self-represent.

The court found the review moot because the appellant had been released from custody by the Vanier Institute.

The court dismissed the application and imposed restrictions on the appellant's ability to bring further motions without written permission, finding her conduct vexatious and an excessive drain on judicial resources.