Court File and Parties

CITATION: Barron v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2021 ONSC 2402

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 107/21

DATE: 20210331

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Rusty dale MORGAN barron, Applicant

AND: Social Benefits Tribunal, Respondent

BEFORE: Favreau J.

COUNSEL: Rusty Dale Morgan Barron – the applicant, representing himself Katia Snukal – for the respondent, Social Benefits Tribunal

Endorsement

[1] The applicant, Rusty Dale Morgan Barron, has commenced two applications for judicial review of decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal. In the first notice of application for judicial review dated February 9, 2021, Mr. Barron challenges a decision of the Tribunal dated March 28, 2019 and a reconsideration decision dated December 11, 2019. The second notice of application for judicial review is also dated February 9, 2021 and it challenges a related decision of the Tribunal dated June 29, 2020 and a reconsideration decision dated December 16, 2020. The underlying decisions appear to relate to claims by Mr. Barron about the treatment of income and business deductions in 2013. In both sets of decisions, the Tribunal makes references to multiple appeals to the Tribunal with respect to these issues.

[2] Both notices of application for judicial review claim that the Tribunal breached Mr. Barron’s rights to procedural fairness and showed bias toward him. They also allege that the Tribunal “provided false and misleading information to the applicant during the ongoing proceedings”. No particulars of these allegations are provided.

[3] On March 22, 2021, the Social Benefits Tribunal wrote to the Divisional Court, requesting that both applications for judicial review be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The stated grounds are that Mr. Barron failed to exhaust his appeal rights and that he failed to name the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program as a respondent. In support of this request, the Tribunal has provided copies of the Tribunal’s decisions Mr. Barron seeks to judicially review.

[4] Section 31(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.25, provides that appeals from decisions of the Tribunal are to be brought within 30 days of the decision to the Divisional Court.

[5] Judicial review is a discretionary remedy. This Court has repeatedly held that an application for judicial review should not be permitted to proceed where there is an adequate alternative remedy; see, for example, Franssen v. Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, 2015 ONSC 651.

[6] 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.

[7] Based on the submissions of the Tribunal, the court is considering whether to dismiss the application on the basis of Rule 2.1.01 in this case. However, Mr. Barron should be given an opportunity to explain why his application 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 applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under rule 2.1.01 dismissing his application;

b. If the applicant 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, namely, the basis on which he says he should be allowed to proceed with the application for judicial review given the appeal provisions and timelines for appeals set out in section 31(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 1997;

c. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the application 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 application except for the applicant’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 applicant and counsel for the respondent, Bruce Hutchison, who appeared on the case conference.

Favreau J.

Date: March 31, 2021