Court File and Parties

Citation: 2020 ONSC 5135

Divisional Court File No.: 547/19

Date: 2020-08-27

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Divisional Court

Re: Mitchell

And: College of Psychologists of Ontario

Before: Penny J.

Heard: by direction of Corbett J. in writing under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Endorsement

[1] Dr. Mitchell has a pending appeal before this Court from a decision of the Health Professions Review and Appeal Board. The case is not yet ready for hearing as the appeal has not been perfected.

[2] The appellant brought a motion before the Divisional Court seeking a fee waiver in respect of the transcript of his June 6, 2019 hearing before the Board. In an endorsement of March 12, 2020, Favreau J. held that the appellant was not entitled to a fee waiver and dismissed his motion.

[3] The appellant again brought a motion before the Divisional Court on June 25, 2020 seeking the same relief. The matter came before Corbett J. as a case conference.

[4] In his case management endorsement of June 25, 2020, Corbett J. concluded that the motion appeared to be doomed to fail as the matter had already been decided. Corbett J. invoked Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and directed the Divisional Court Registrar to issue a Notice to the appellant that the Court is considering dismissing his motion for a fee waiver as frivolous, vexatious and an abusive process within the meaning of Rule 2.1.02.

[5] The Divisional Court Registrar duly issued that Notice on July 3, 2020. The Notice provided that the appellant’s motion would be stayed or dismissed unless, within 15 days, the appellant provided a written submission (of no more than 10 pages) showing cause why his motion should not be stayed or dismissed.

[6] Corbett J.’s endorsement directed the appellant to address three points:

(1) why the decision of Favreau J. is not binding on him;

(2) legal authority for the proposition that a fee waiver under the Financial Administration Act would relieve him of paying costs for transcripts of proceedings before the Board required for his appeal; and

(3) why the appellant had not included complete copies of his tax returns in support of his request for a fee waiver and why he should be granted a fee waiver when he had not provided documentary evidence of his income, which is a precondition to the grant of fee waiver.

[7] The deadline for his written submission, July 23, 2020, came and went. The appellant did not, and has not still to this day, filed the required submission.

[8] I find on the record before me that the appellant’s motion for a fee waiver is frivolous, vexatious and an abusive process of the court. The matter was finally determined by Favreau J. That Order is binding on the appellant. Further, the appellant has not addressed any of the other concerns raised in the endorsement of Corbett J. It is clear that the appellant’s motion is entirely without foundation, such that it would be a waste of court resources to deal with it any further.

[9] The motion is dismissed.

[10] The appellant shall not bring this, or any substantially similar motion, before this Court again. The Divisional Court Registrar is directed to refuse to accept for filing any such further motion by the appellant.

Penny J.

Date: August 27, 2020