Court File and Parties
CITATION: Dipchand v. Orman, 2021 ONSC 3859
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 274/21
DATE: 20210527
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Dipchand and Dipchand v. Orman and Centurami
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Jagatlall Manmohan Dipchand, self-represented Appellant
No one appearing for the Respondents
IN WRITING, IN CHAMBERS
Endorsement
[1] By email dated April 14, 2021, this court, in its case management capacity, raised the following concerns with the appellants:
The court appreciates that the appellants are self-represented. The court has an obligation to assist self-represented persons to navigate the court process. However, the appellant's materials are so incoherent that the court is unable to understand the nature of their appeal. They describe themselves as "tenants". The underlying decision of O'Brien J. was not between a landlord and his tenants. O'Brien J. required that tenants be given notice of her order. I presume that this was done and that tenants are now disputing that the order ought to be enforced against their interest. If this is so, it is a matter to be raised with O'Brien J. by the tenants and not with this court. So far as this court can tell, the tenants were not parties to the proceeding in which O'Brien J. made her order, but were persons who could be affected by her order (and thus Her Honour directed that the tenants be given notice of the order).
Finally, the orders of O'Brien J. were made in January and November 2020. If the appellants were parties to the proceeding in which the orders were granted and had notice of them at the time the orders were granted, then the time to bring an appeal from those orders has long passed. If they were not parties to the proceedings, then they should be moving for relief before the Superior Court at first instance, and not before this court.
The parties are asked to provide this court by email by April 21, 2021, with information to explain the current status of the case, the role of the appellants in the case, and the other points raised in this direction.
[2] Following an exchange of emails that shed little additional light on the situation, the court directed the Registrar to issue a notice to the appellants pursuant to R.2.1 that the court is considering dismissing the appeal pursuant to R.2.1, raising the following concerns for the appellants to address:
The court is considering dismissing this appeal pursuant to R.2.1. for the following reasons:
The underlying litigation is between the second mortgagee (Orman) and the owners (Singh). No appeal has been brought to this court by the defendants (Singh).
The purported appellants (Dipchand) claim to be tenants and claim that their tenancy rights have been violated by enforcement of court orders authorized by O'Brien J. On the face of the order of O'Brien J., no tenants were parties before her, but she ordered that tenants be given notice of her order. Implicit in that direction, O'Brien J. or some other motions judge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice may hear and consider any motion by the tenant respecting enforcement of the mortgage judgment. O'Brien J. has not ruled on such a claim, and thus there is no ruling from O'Brien J. for this court to consider on appeal.
The "appellants'" recourse is a motion to vary or for directions in the Superior Court, and not an appeal of the order of O'Brien J.
The appellants shall have fifteen days to respond to the Notice pursuant to R.2.1. In the meantime, this court notes that the orders from the Superior Court are not stayed.
[3] The appellants responded by email dated May 14, 2021. Their response addresses their arguments respecting their status as tenants in the subject property. It does not address any of the concerns raised by the court in the R.2.1 notice: specifically, the appellants do not explain why they have standing to challenge the order of O’Brien J. made as between the lender and the owner, and the appellants do not explain why they have not moved for relief in the Superior Court of Justice. There is no record from the court below respecting the appellants’ issues, and no decision from the court below respecting the points that the tenants wish to raise in this court.
[4] Counsel for the lender has written to the court providing a history of abusive litigation tactics by the owners and arguing that the steps taken by the appellants have been instigated by the owners as part of this pattern of litigation misconduct. This court need not inquire into those allegations to dispose of this appeal pursuant to R.2.1. Assuming, without finding, that the appellants are bona fide tenants with concerns about enforcement of mortgage remedies in a property in which they are residing, they still have no basis to bring an appeal in this court. Any recourse they have lies in the Superior Court of Justice at first instance.
[5] The appellants have no standing to bring this appeal and the issues they seek to raise are not properly before this court at first instance. This appeal is dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process for these reasons, pursuant to R.2.1.01.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: May 27, 2021