Wang v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2019 ONSC 6908

CITATION: Wang v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2019 ONSC 6908

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 196/18

DATE: 20191129

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

B E T W E E N:

YONG WANG, Appellant

– and –

UNIFUND ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: November 29, 2019

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated November 12, 2019, reported at 2019 ONSC 6485, the court directed the registrar to give notice to the appellant that it was considering dismissing his outstanding motion to review the order of Corbett J. dated October 31, 2019 for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court under Rule 2.1.

[2] Mr. Wang moves to a panel of three judges to review the decision of Corbett J. refusing to extend the time for the review of the decision of Sachs J. refusing to set aside the dismissal of his appeal for delay by the registrar.

[3] Both Corbett J. and Sachs J. found that there was no merit to Mr. Yang’s appeal from an arbitrator’s decision to deny him attendant care and housekeeping benefits. However, he continues to be entitled to bring a claim to be found to have suffered catastrophic impairment.

[4] Mr. Wang has delivered two pages of submissions and additional documents to support his motion. His submits that:

a. His appeal from the arbitrator’s decision is separate from a lawsuit that he has brought in the Superior Court against Trillium Health Partners and others relating to an allegation that an unqualified person took off his C-spine collar in order to mislead the results of his x-rays; and

b. The respondent criminally altered his OCF-19 form claiming catastrophic impairment by ticking a box that said that the form was his first application for catastrophic determination.

[5] Mr. Wang provides no basis to continue his motion to review Justice Corbett’s order. The motion has no chance of success. Moreover, it has no purpose. Even if Mr. Wang obtained the right to ask for a review of the order of Sachs J. and even if he succeeded on that review to reinstate his appeal, both Sachs J. and Corbett J. have told Mr. Wang that the appeal has no legal merit and cannot succeed. Moreover, the appeal is not necessary for Mr. Wang to bring his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits. He can still bring that claim to the Licence Appeal Tribunal without the appeal to this court.

[6] Mr. Wang’s submissions also establish the need for using the attenuated process of Rule 2.1. His allegations are scandalous and irrelevant. It would be abusive to require the respondent to incur costs to respond and it would not be a worthwhile use of court processes.

[7] I urge Mr. Wang to seek legal assistance from a lawyer. He needs help to understand how to bring legal proceedings to enforce his rights.

[8] Mr. Wang can try to get legal help by contacting the Law Society’s Lawyer Referral Service at http://www.lawsocietyreferralservice.ca/.

[9] Mr. Wang can also seek the free legal help from:

a. Pro Bono Law, at 393 University Ave., Room 110, Toronto; or

b. Downtown Legal Services, at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 655 Spadina Avenue, Toronto; or

c. Community Legal Aid Services Program, at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Ignat Kaneff Building, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto.

[10] Mr. Wang’s motion to review the order of Corbett J. is therefore dismissed.

[11] The court dispenses with any requirement for Mr. Wang to approve the form or content of the order implementing this endorsement.

[12] The respondent is entitled to its costs of the motion to review the order of Corbett J. on a partial indemnity basis forthwith after the assessment of the quantum by an assessment officer.

[13] In light of the string of frivolous motions brought by Mr. Wang in this proceeding, this is an appropriate case in which to order under Rule 2.1.02(3) that Mr. Wang may not bring any further motions in this appeal proceeding except on obtaining permission from a judge of the Divisional Court prior to doing so. If Mr. Wang wishes to ask for permission to bring another motion, he may deliver a letter to the Registrar addressed to the Team Leader of the Divisional Court requesting permission to bring the motion. The letter may be no more than two pages and shall explain the relief that Mr. Wang wishes to seek on his proposed motion and why the motion has sufficient merit so as to be allowed to proceed. The letter should not be sent to the respondent or its counsel and the respondent need not incur any costs in relation to any request for leave made by Mr. Wang. In the event that the respondent is served with a motion in this appeal proceeding by Mr. Wang and he has not obtained leave to bring the motion, the Registrar is directed to dismiss the motion on requisition of the respondent.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: November 29, 2019