Court File and Parties

CITATION: Guibord v. National Bank, 2021 ONSC 5763

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 404/21

DATE: 20210826

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Marcel Guibord, Moving Party

AND:

National Bank, Responding Party

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Mr Guibord, unrepresented Moving Party, not appearing

IN WRITING, IN CHAMBERS

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The moving party, Mr Guibord, seeks leave to appeal from the decision of Hackland J. ordering that Mr Guibord not seek a fee waiver in respect to this case or related proceedings without prior leave from a judge, and from a decision of Gomery J. pursuant to R.2.1.01, dismissing an appeal from a scheduling order of Master Kauffman.

[2] In para. 40 of my endorsement dated August 10, 2021, I directed Mr Guibord to do the following by August 20, 2021, failing which his motions for leave to appeal would be dismissed as abandoned without costs:

(a) he shall provide his email and mailing address to the court;

(b) he shall provide a signed fee waiver request or, alternatively, shall pay the outstanding fees for his motions for leave to appeal;

(c) if Mr Guibord decides to pursue a fee waiver request, he shall provide the court with the permission he has obtained from a Superior Court Justice to request a fee waiver or his explanation as to why he has not complied with the order of Hackland J. in this regard;

(d) he shall advise of the deadline by which he shall serve all of the motion materials on which he relies in respect to the two motions for leave to appeal currently outstanding before the court.

[3] By email from Grand Chief Mukwa dated August 16, 2021, Mukwa asked certain questions about an intended appeal by Mr Guibord of this court’s decision on the R.2.1.01 decision. At my direction the parties were advised as follows on August 26, 2021 respecting Mukwa’s communication:

The court has received a communication from Grand Chief Mukwa seeking to appeal the R.2.1.01 decision of Justice Corbett. Grand Chief Mukwa is entitled to pursue an appeal of that decision in his own name, since portions of the court's order are directed at him. That appeal lies, with leave, to the Ontario Court of Appeal: R.2.1.01 decisions in this court are made by a single judge rather than a panel of three judges by standing direction of Associate Chief Justice McWatt, and the R.2.1.01 directions have the status of panel orders for the purposes of appeal. No further action will be taken in the Divisional Court in respect to Grand Chief Mukwa's appeal.

The communication from the Grand Chief does not affect Mr Guibord's proceedings in this court since Grand Chief Mukwa is not able to communicate with this court on behalf of Mr Guibord. The court does not expect to communicate further with Grand Chief Mukwa in respect to these matters unless one of our administrative judges directs otherwise.

[4] This court received an email address bearing Mr Guibord’s name on August 17, 2021 in which Mr Guibord sought to initiate an appeal or review of my decision on the R.2.1.01 issue. As noted above, in the email to Mukwa, R.2.1.01 proceedings are heard and decided by a single judge of the Divisional Court instead of a panel of three judges by standing direction of the Associate Chief Justice pursuant to s.21(2)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act. There is no appeal or review of these decisions in the Divisional Court. Mr Guibord’s appeal rights lie to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but only with leave from that court, in respect to the R.2.1.01 decision.

[5] Paragraph 40 of my decision imposed certain case management terms on Mr Guibord. These are case management directions, not orders made pursuant to R.2.1.01.

[6] Arguably Mr Guibord has complied with the requirement to provide an email address to this court by transmitting his appeal papers from an email address bearing Mr Guibord’s name. I assume that this constitutes compliance with the direction for present purposes but note a lingering concern. In prior communications from Mukwa, Mukwa claimed that Guibord requires an interpreter to participate in court proceedings, Mr Guibord’s language being Metis and French-based rather than English. The email putatively from Mr Guibord is in English and the appeal papers attached to the email are all in English. This court continues to be concerned that Mr Guibord is unaware of what is being done in his name and that the English language communications sent to this court are not, in fact, from Mr Guibord. The court will proceed, for now, on the basis that the communications are genuinely from Mr Guibord and that he understands them and has sent them himself.

[7] Mr Guibord has not otherwise complied with my direction of August 10, 2021.

[8] Mr Guibord’s motions for leave to appeal are dismissed as abandoned, pursuant to my case management directions in para. 40 of my endorsement of August 10, 2021, and Mr Guibord’s failure to comply with my case management directions.

[9] These dismissal orders are subject to review before a panel of the Divisional Court. If Mr Guibord does seek to review these dismissal orders, then case management of the review motion (including any R.2.1,01 process that may be instigated in respect to the review motion) shall be case undertaken by Favreau J. or as Her Honour may direct.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: August 26, 2021