CITATION: Kim v. McIntosh, 2022 ONSC 3173

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 71/20 and TBA

DATE: 2022/05/26

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Anita Kim, Responding Party and Adan McIntosh, Moving Party

BEFORE: J. Audet J.

COUNSEL: Oriana Pollitt, for the Responding Party Mr. McIntosh, self-represented Moving Party

HEARD: May 26, 2022, in writing, in Chambers

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Further to my April 22, 2022 endorsement in these matters, Mr. McIntosh has re-uploaded his motion materials in CaseLines, as directed, in Court File No. 71/20 and “TBA”. I have had an opportunity to review his materials in each file, and as a result provide further directions as follows.

File 71/20

[2] Mr. McIntosh’s motion for leave to appeal the costs order of Nakonechny J. dated January 7, 2020 may now proceed. Directions to that effect are being given to the Registrar.

File TBA

[3] In this matter, Mr. McIntosh provided the Court with a notice of motion for leave to appeal the order of Hood J. made on December 2, 2021, by way of which he vacated Mr. McIntosh’s 14B motion date (which was returnable on December 8, 2021), awarded $500 of costs against him, and ordered that Mr. McIntosh could not bring any further motions in that proceeding without prior leave from the Court. Mr. McIntosh was directed to upload the rest of his motion materials on CaseLines at which time further directions would be given to him.

[4] When the matter came before me as I began to manage this case, and as indicated in my April 22, 2022 endorsement, I raised the following issues in relation to this matter:

a. Mr. McIntosh’s motion materials were no longer on CaseLines;

b. I was of the view that Mr. McIntosh’s motion for leave to appeal Hood J.’s operative order (as opposed to his costs order) might very well be moot given that a final order had been made.

[5] At my request, the Registrar issued a notice pursuant to R.2.1. that the Court was considering dismissing Mr. McIntosh’s “motion to review” the operative portion of Hood J.’s order (as opposed to his costs order) on the basis that his motion was now moot as a result of the October 2021 Final Order.

[6] As directed, Mr. McIntosh re-uploaded his motion materials on CaseLines. I now have access to them. Mr. McIntosh also provided written submissions in response to the R.2.1. Notice issued by the Registrar. His submissions were emailed directly to me, at my work email address, and he has now named me as a responding party to his submissions, seeking costs personally against me. Although submitted late, and not in accordance with the latest version of the Notice to Profession applicable in the Divisional Court (as of April 19, 2022), I am accepting his written submissions and have reviewed them.

[7] In his submissions, Mr. McIntosh raises a number of objections in relation to the accuracy of the R.2.1. Notice issued by the Registrar at my direction, and the Court’s jurisdiction to direct that such a notice be issued. Mr. McIntosh’s submissions in that regard are rejected.

[8] Mr. McIntosh takes the position that, having admitted in my April 22, 2022 endorsement that I had not read “the pleadings”, I had no authority to direct the issuance of a R.2.1. Notice. The pleadings to which I was referring were Mr. McIntosh’s 14B motion materials which were considered by Hood J. when he made the order that Mr. McIntosh is trying to get leave to appeal from before this Court. There was no need for me to have access to those 14B motion materials to question whether Mr. McIntosh’s appeal of Hood J.’s Order was moot at this time, given that a final order had already been made in that proceeding.

[9] I conclude that Mr. McIntosh’s motion for leave to appeal Hood J.’s order is now moot, since Mr. McIntosh’s legal proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice is now the subject of a final order and, therefore, the operative part of Hood J.’s Order has no continuing force.

[10] Further, I find that it would be an abuse of process to allow Mr. McIntosh to seek leave to appeal before this Court the $500 cost award made by Hood J. In my view, the amount in question does not justify dedicating the Court’s very limited resources to such an appeal.

Other proceedings

[11] On May 1, 2022, Mr. McIntosh filed a Notice of Motion in which he sought “a review” of my endorsement dated April 26, 2022 (I assume this is a typo and that he was referring to my April 22, 2022 endorsement). Mr. McIntosh has also requested an urgent motion seeking my recusal based on his allegation that I am corrupt.

[12] Any appeal from the orders I made on April 22, 2022 now lies to the Court of Appeal.

[13] Mr. McIntosh’s motion seeking my recusal as Case Management Judge is now moot, since all proceedings initiated by him before the Divisional Court have been dismissed, except for his motion for leave to appeal the costs order of Nakonechny J. (dated January 7, 2020) in Court File No. 71/20. As stated above, directions are being given for that motion to be adjudicated upon. Therefore, my role as Case Management Judge in this matter is at an end.

[14] I wish to add that throughout the course of these proceedings before the Divisional Court, Mr. McIntosh has written to the Registrar a series of belligerent and accusatory emails in which he accuses the Court and its staff of being corrupt, incompetent, acting in bad faith, and comparing their conduct to the conduct of soldiers during the Holocaust. He has threatened to serve court materials personally upon Court staff, sought to speak to their “direct supervisor” to complain about their conduct, and “directed them” to do various things and take various steps.

[15] Mr. McIntosh has not only been abusive to Court staff. His litigation conduct has been a clear abuse of this Court’s process. Mr. McIntosh’s relentless appeal of every single order made by the Court in the various legal proceedings initiated by him before this Court is a continuation of the frivolous and abusive behavior reported by Hood J. in his December 2, 2021 endorsement. His relentless and meritless appeals, coupled with his ongoing accusations towards the Court and its staff are taking away valuable judicial time and resources from other deserving litigants. This behavior on the part of Mr. McIntosh cannot possibly be condoned by this Court.

Madam Justice Julie Audet

Release Date: May 26, 2022

CITATION: Kim v. McIntosh, 2022 ONSC 3173

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 71/20 and TBA

DATE: 2022/05/26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Anita Kim, Responding Party and Adan McIntosh, Moving Party

BEFORE: J. Audet J.

COUNSEL: Oriana Pollitt, for the Responding Party Mr. McIntosh, self-represented Moving Party

HEARD: May 26, 2022, in writing, in Chambers

Endorsement

Audet J.

Released: May 26, 2022