CITATION: Park v. Punnett, 2022 ONSC 4423
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 12/20
(Brampton) DATE: 20220805
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
YOUNG PARK
Young Park, self-represented
Appellant
– and –
GERALD PUNNETT
Respondent
In Writing, In Chambers: July 13, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION[^1]
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] I took over case management of this file after Favreau J.’s elevation to the Court of Appeal. In this regard I issued the following direction:
The court regrets the delay in case management in this matter. Justice Favreau was elevated to the Ontario Court of Appeal mid December 2021. Henceforth, Justice Corbett shall be case managing this matter.
A preliminary point appears to have been overlooked.
Morgan J. declared the appellant to be a vexatious litigant in 2013: Yae v. Park, 2013 ONSC 1331. Pursuant to that order, the appellant is required to obtain leave from a Superior Court Justice before commencing a proceeding.
The appellant is directed to provide this court with a copy of any order she has obtained granting her leave to bring this appeal, pursuant to s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act. If the appellant has not obtained leave in accordance with the order of Morgan J., she is asked to explain why she has not complied with that order.
The appellant is asked to respond to this issue by July 13, 2022, after which the court will provide further directions.
[2] The appellant responded to this direction as follows:
I was given legal advice that I am able to launch appeals against judgments without a judge's permission.
[3] This court then dismissed this appeal for the following reasons:
The appellant advises that she has not obtained leave pursuant to s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act to bring this appeal. She says she received legal advice that she does not require such leave to commence an appeal.
If the appellant received such legal advice, that advice was wrong. It is clearly established that she requires leave to bring an appeal (excepting perhaps the very order that declared her vexatious - a matter not in issue in this appeal). See Kallaba v. Bylykbashi (2006), 2006 3953 (ON CA), 23 RFL (6th) 235, 265 DLR (4th) 320 (Ont. CA), paras. 24-26.
The appeal is dismissed without costs because the appellant has not obtained the required permission pursuant to s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act.
[4] The Appellant then wrote to the Divisional Court as follows:
I am requesting a panel review of the attached decision from Corbett J. to be heard in person this month (July) or in August.
I wish to have a chance to explain that the order of Morgan J. declaring me a vexatious litigant was unfair and in error.
[5] The court then directed the appellant as follows:
A decision pursuant to R.2.1 is not a decision of a motions judge and is not subject to review by a panel of the Divisional Court. It is subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal, with leave from that court.
The appellant is required to obtain leave pursuant to s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act before bringing a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appellant is directed to bring this requirement to the attention of staff at the Court of Appeal if he seeks to initiate a motion for leave to appeal there. This direction is not binding on the Court of Appeal and is no more than an explanation of the effect of the existing vexatious litigant order. However, the appellant is required to comply with the direction to provide this information to staff at the Court of Appeal, so that administrative and judicial time is not wasted in that court.
Finally, the appellant states that he "wishes to have a chance to explain that the order of Morgan J. declaring [him] vexatious was unfair and in error." The order of Morgan J. is not subject to appeal or review in this court. Moreover, the time to appeal the order of Morgan J. (to the Court of Appeal) has long since expired. The order of Morgan J. is a valid and subsisting court order, and the appellant is required to follow it.
[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.
Email Directions Released: July 13, 2022
Written Endorsement Released: August 5, 2022
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 12/20
(Brampton) DATE: 20220803
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett J.
BETWEEN:
YOUNG PARK
Appellant
– and –
GERALD PUNNETT
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Written Endorsement Released: August 3, 2022
[^1]: This decision was provided to the parties by emails on July 13, 2022, and was effective as of that date. The reasons have been edited without changing the substance of the decision.