Citation: Watt v. HPARB, 2020 ONSC 5501

COURT FILE NOS.:

DATE: 20200914

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Watt v. HPARB

COUNSEL: Andrew Watt, self-represented Applicant

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

DATE: September 14, 2020

IN CHAMBERS, IN WRITING

Endorsement

[1] By notice given September 2, 2020, the applicant was asked to explain why this appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to R.2.1.01. For the reasons that follow I have concluded that the appeal should not be dismissed under R.2.1.01 at this time, and I direct a case management teleconference among the appellant, the respondent HPARB and the court. The respondent individuals need not participate in this case management teleconference.

[2] I noted in my previous endorsement (2020 ONSC 5258) that the appellant’s notice of appeal is technically sufficient though unparticularised. Having reviewed the impugned decision of the HPARB, and the underlying decision from the ICRC upheld by the HPARB, I concluded that there may be a sufficient basis before this court to assess the appeal under R.2.1.01. The ICRC concluded that the appellant’s complaints “are essentially incapable of proof and are not credible”, that “[t]here is no information to support the … claims” and “[i]t appears likely… that the Complainant’s claims are related to faulty perceptions and a withdrawal from reality.” The HPARB dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the ICRC as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, essentially for the reasons given by the ICRC. A summary of the allegations made by the complainant is set out in the decisions below and, on their face, seem to support the ICRC and HPARB decisions. It was on this basis that the court directed that the R.2.1.01 be issued.

[3] In his response, the appellant provides a legal argument that is generally sound but which does not address the issues raised in the R.2.1.01 notice. He describes one complaint that he made against one doctor, which was not referenced in the reasons of the ICRC or the HPARB. He also references a complaint he has about the University of Toronto not permitting him to continue in his study program. He acknowledges having been assessed as delusional respecting some complaints that he made many years ago, but states that he has undergone treatment and assessment and is no longer suffering from delusions. However, in his supplementary response to the R.2.1.01 notice, the appellant has provided a copy of the letter he received from the University of Toronto and it does not confirm the appellant’s description of the assessment that was provided to the University.

[4] The complaints made by the appellant described by the ICRC in its decision seem almost certainly to be products of delusions. However the appellant has not addressed these complaints in his response to the R.2.1.01 notice. The complaints addressed by the appellant in his response seem outlandish but cannot be said, on their face, to be “incapable of proof”.

[5] I have concluded that, given the opacity of the reasons below, this case is not amenable to resolution under R.2.1.01 at this time. The court will need the Record of Proceedings below in order to assess the case and to decide how it should best be addressed.

[6] I am concerned, however, that the individual respondents should not be required to respond to this proceeding at this stage. It was dismissed as unworthy of the adjudicative process by the HPARB, and I consider that the individual respondents need not be involved until it is determined whether the case will proceed to a hearing on the merits of the appeal. The individual respondents are entitled to notice and to participate if they wish, but the court wants it clear that they are not expected to do so and that they will be given an opportunity to respond to the appeal if the case does proceed to a hearing on the merits.

[7] I am also concerned that the slender reasons below may be a product of the tribunal’s desire to respect the appellant’s privacy in a case where the appellant’s health issues appear to be the foundational basis of the tribunal’s decision.

[8] For all of these reasons, it is ordered:

(a) that the case not be dismissed or stayed pursuant to R.2.1.01 at this time;

(b) that there be a case management teleconference among the appellant, the respondent HPARB and the court, to be scheduled by Divisional Court staff before me;

(c) that individual respondents not be required to participate in the case management teleconference;

(d) that counsel for HPARB is asked to try to give the individual respondents notice of the case management teleconference and of this endorsement (such notice may be given to counsel for the individual respondents if the identity of such counsel is known to counsel for HPARB).

[9] At the case management teleconference, the court will hope to learn when HPARB will be able to serve a Record of Proceedings.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: September 14, 2020