Court File and Parties

CITATION: Macmull v. Ontario (Ministry of Health), 2023 ONSC 2380

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 126/23

DATE: 20230419

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Roni Hai Macmull and Miriam Eitana Macmull, Applicants

AND: Ministry of Health, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, Nurses Complaints Appeal Bureau, Respondents

BEFORE: Nishikawa J.

COUNSEL: Roni Macmull, in person

HEARD at Toronto: In writing

RULE 2.1.01 ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Applicants, Roni Macmull and Miriam Eitana Macmull, bring an application for judicial review of a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”) dated February 2, 2023. In the decision, the HPARB confirmed the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) to take no further action in respect of the Applicants’ complaint, which related to the death of their father, Ezra Macmull, while at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. In their notice of application for judicial review, the Applicants seek an order requiring the HPARB to produce any consent forms signed by their deceased father.

[2] On March 31, 2023, I directed that the Registrar send out notice to the Applicants advising that this Court was considering dismissing their application under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process because the application appeared to be duplicative of their previous application for judicial review (Court File No. 555/21). That application sought review of a different decision of the HPARB made in 2021 but was based on the same factual circumstances. The application was dismissed by Favreau J. (as she then was) under r. 2.1.01: Macmull v. Ministry of Health, 2021 ONSC 182 (Div. Ct.).

[3] This court may stay or dismiss an appeal if it appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process: Rule 2.1.01, Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 2.1.01 can only be used in the “clearest of cases”, where here the frivolous or abusive nature of the proceedings is apparent on the face of the pleadings: Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690, at para. 8; Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8; Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320 at para. 6. Rule 2.1.01 should not be used to weed out cases that might be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process or where it is a close call: Visic at para. 8.

[4] The notice of application for judicial review contains the following brief paragraphs:

A. The Health Professional Appeal and Review decision does not include evidence for any consent form, signed by Ezra Macmull.

B. The court must make decisions based on evidence. In the Health Professional Appeal and Review decision, there are no evidence present, except for stories.

C. Due to our inability to meet the standard of this court in this request, including the ability to find the right lawyer, understand the legal procedure, it is likely that this application by us does not the meet the required standard. However, this definitely does not mean that Ezra Macmull was not executed and brutally led to horrifying death. A true justice system must not rely on the family’s ability to meet the standards of the court.

[5] On April 2, 2023, Roni Macmull provided a brief written submission stating that this court must decide the application on evidence.

[6] In the previous r. 2.1.01 decision, Favreau J. detailed the explanation that she provided to the Applicants regarding the requirements for an application for judicial review, both in form and substance: 2021 ONSC 182, at para. 7. When faced with the r. 2.1.01 notice, the Applicants did not attempt to meet the requirements for an application for judicial review but, rather, took the position that they should not be required to comply: at para. 8.

[7] In this case as well, the notice of application does not meet the most basic legal requirements for an application for judicial review. As before, the Applicants do not state proper grounds for challenging the HPARB’s decision. The basis for naming certain respondents is not clear on the face of the pleading. The relief sought is not available before this court. In addition, while they seek review of a different decision of the HPARB, the Applicants raise the same issues as in the previous application.

[8] Like their previous application for judicial review, this application for judicial review is frivolous, vexatious and without any basis in law. I am satisfied that the frivolous or abusive nature of the appeal is apparent on the face of the notice of application for judicial review.

[9] I agree with the observations made by Favreau J. (at para.14):

While I accept the applicants’ general proposition that the Court should make some allowances for the fact that they are self-represented, this does not extend to allowing the applicants to bring forward a proceeding that names the wrong parties and that does not state proper grounds for judicial review. While self-represented litigants can be excused from complying with some of the Court’s formal requirements in appropriate circumstances, they nevertheless have an obligation to inform themselves about court processes and to ensure that their proceedings are tenable at law.

[10] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01. Given that the responding parties were not required to make any submissions in response to the Court’s Rule 2.1.01 notice, no costs are ordered.

Nishikawa J.

Date: April 19, 2023