Court File and Parties

CITATION: Maki v. Lipton, 2021 ONSC 1014

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 664/20

DATE: 2021-02-08

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Rob Maki, Appellant AND: Daniel Lipton, Respondent

BEFORE: Favreau J.

COUNSEL: Rob Maki – the appellant, representing himself David Strashin – for the respondent

Endorsement

[1] The appellant, Rob Maki, seeks to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated November 26, 2020 refusing to extend the time to review a decision of the Board dated August 4, 2020.

[2] Counsel for the landlord, Daniel Lipton, has written to the Divisional Court requesting that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[3] Mr. Maki has already appealed the Board’s decision dated August 4, 2020 to the Divisional Court. In an endorsement dated December 14, 2020, G.E. Taylor J. quashed Mr. Maki’s appeal from the Board’s August 4, 2020 decision on the basis that Mr. Maki did not file materials in response to the motion despite a schedule set for his responding materials and did not provide good reasons for the adjournment he sought.

[4] The notice of appeal filed by Mr. Maki in support of his appeal from the Board’s decision dated November 26, 2020 states that Mr. Maki had intended to review the August 4, 2020 decision and that he has good grounds for reviewing the August 4, 2020 decision.

[5] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.

[6] The appeal in this case appears to be an attempt to relitigate issues that were raised or could have been raised in the appeal from the Board’s August 4, 2020 decision.

[7] The court is considering whether to dismiss the application on the basis of Rule 2.1.01 in this case. However, the appellant should be given an opportunity to explain why his appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process.

[8] Accordingly, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the appellant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under rule 2.1.01 dismissing his appeal;

b. If the appellant chooses to make written submissions in response to the notice in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3)2, his written submissions should address the apparent deficiencies identified above.

c. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the appeal is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43;

d. The registrar shall accept no further filings in the appeal except for the appellant’s written submissions delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3); and

e. In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the appellant and counsel for the respondent.

Favreau J.

Date: February 8, 2021