Court File and Parties
Citation: Siu v. Ye, 2021 ONSC 5751
Divisional Court File No.: 635/21
Date: 20210826
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Divisional Court
Re: SIU v. YE
Before: D.L. Corbett J.
Counsel: Mr Ye, self-represented
Heard: In Writing, In Chambers
Endorsement
[1] On August 10, 2021, I directed the Registrar to give notice pursuant to R.2.1.01 on the following basis:
The Registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant that the court is considering dismissing the application pursuant to R.2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for the following reasons:
The applicant has not exercised his rights of appeal and in those circumstances the court would not exercise its discretion to conduct a judicial review of the decision.
The decision of A. Himel J. is interlocutory and may not be appealed without first obtaining leave to appeal.
The decision below makes various procedural directions at a case conference. The applicant has failed to identify an operative aspect of the order that he seeks to challenge before this court that could conceivably ground an order for leave to appeal.
The applicant seeks to challenge a "finding" by the court below that he suffers from mental health issues. On the face of the endorsement below, no such finding was made. An issue with the applicant's mental health was raised by the respondent and the court below addressed process issues related to any steps that may be taken by the respondent respecting the applicant's mental health. Such procedural directions cannot raise a basis for granting leave to appeal.
Many allegations set out in the notice of application are scandalous and vexatious on their face, including personal allegations against the presiding judge. The application has all the hallmarks of a vexatious litigant pursuing litigation that will put the respondent to unnecessary legal expense.
[2] The applicant provided submissions on August 16, 2021. He then sent further emails with more submissions. The formal submissions failed to address the primary concerns raised by the court in its notice. Instead they repeat sweeping scandalous allegations against the presiding judge for which no basis is offered in the record or at all. Mr Ye’s additional emails raise allegations against York Regional Police – matters which were not before A. Himel J. and in respect to which she made no orders.
[3] The application is obviously frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process within the meaning of R.2.1.01. It is dismissed without costs.
___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.
Released: August 26, 2021