Court File and Parties

Citation: Parris v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario et al., 2023 ONSC 4084 Divisional Court File No.: 377/23 Date: 2023-07-10 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Title: Dhillon Parris, Appellant And: His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, Jeffrey Lem, and Adam Mortimer

Before: Leiper J.

Counsel: Dhillon Parris, self-represented Applicant Michael Saad, counsel for the Respondent

Heard: In writing Date of Decision: July 10, 2023

Endorsement

[1] The Appellant, Dhillon Parris has filed an appeal from the May 15, 2023 decision of Akbarali, J. which dismissed his application as an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate matters which had been the subject of judgment, and pled claims that were not recognizable at law. Even if amendments were to be permitted to include justiciable claims, Akbarali J. concluded that the nature of the relief sought would nevertheless be an abuse of process.

[2] On June 23, 2023 I directed the parties to provide submissions as to whether this appeal ought to be stayed or dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 on the basis that this appeal is "frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process."

[3] The parties made written submissions on the r. 2.1 issue. I have reviewed these submissions, the decision of Akbarali, J. and the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act RSO 1990, c C.43. For the following reasons, I conclude that Mr. Parris's appeal should be dismissed.

[4] Mr. Parris's written submissions outlined his allegations of criminal fraud relative to the registration of a charge and a transfer on a property in Brampton, Ontario, which he was ultimately required to vacate when a writ of possession was issued.

[5] Mr. Parris alleged that criminal offences were committed relative to the proceedings involving the property. He has accused, among others, a law firm, the Peel Sherriff, Service Ontario officials, and Counsel for the Respondent.

[6] Mr. Parris seeks to appeal the decision of Akbarali, J. He submits that his appeal is not a frivolous or vexatious proceeding because it concerns his recovery of an interest in land. He notes that "embarrassment is not the purpose of the application." He submits that his criminal allegations were not addressed by the court, and that r. 2.1 does not apply to his application or to this appeal.

[7] Counsel for the Respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed on two alternative bases. First, the Divisional Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear this appeal because it is a final order. According to s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice lies to the Ontario Court of Appeal unless it is an order referred to in s. 19(1)(a) or (a.1) or an order from which an appeal lies to the Divisional Court under another Act. Neither of those exceptions apply here. The dismissal of this application by Akbarali, J. was final.

[8] I agree. Mr. Parris did not address the jurisdictional issue arising from the Courts of Justice Act. This court does not have jurisdiction by virtue of ss. 6(1)(b) and 19(1)(a) or (a.1). This means the appeal to the Divisional Court has no chance of succeeding because this court lacks jurisdiction. It is a frivolous appeal and should be dismissed on this basis.

[9] Alternatively, the Respondent submits T that this court should exercise its jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal pursuant to r. 2.1.01(a) because the appeal is vexatious and an abuse of process.

[10] Justice Akbarali outlined the facts and history of proceedings relative to the mortgage enforcement of Mr. Parris' home and found that the arguments had been made in prior proceedings and adjudicated. One example is a nearly identical proceeding brought by Mr. Parris against Ontario and Jeffrey Lem in 2021, which was dismissed by Justice Dow pursuant to r. 2.1. The application before Akbarali, J. concerns the same subject matter, and two of the same parties, with a third added. Mr. Parris on appeal has added an allegation that Akbarali, J.'s endorsement was "the product of fraud."

[11] The alternative submission also has merit. As an alternative to the jurisdictional point, this appeal is frivolous and vexatious on its face.

[12] The appeal is dismissed.

_______________________________ Leiper J.

Released: July 10, 2023