Court File and Parties

CITATION: Liu v. Kostiuk, 2024 ONSC 6933

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 566/24

DATE: 2024-12-11

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Wanli Liu et al., Applicants -and- Boris J. Kostiuk, et al., Respondents

BEFORE: FL Myers J

COUNSEL: Wanli Liu, self-represented Applicant Frank Perruccio, for the Respondents

HEARD: December 11, 2024

CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT

[1] Ms. Liu seeks leave to appeal the decision of Corkery J. dated August 29, 2024 essentially adjourning a motion to a longer hearing appointment with directions requiring Ms. Liu to retain counsel for her late husband’s estate and herself, freeing up estate money to do so, and ordering her to pay costs already ordered by another judge.

[2] The issue in the litigation is whether Ms. Liu’s late husband properly paid to his two brothers amounts left by their deceased father.

[3] Ms. Liu is resolute that her late husband paid his brothers. Therefore, she says the estate of her late husband is not involved in this proceeding and she does not have to follow the orders made by judges below.

[4] I listened and tried to speak to Ms. Liu for the best part of an hour. She either cannot understand the legal process or she is choosing to delay and throw up roadblocks to prevent review of the administration of the two estates.

[5] I explained to Ms. Liu that no matter how strongly she believes that her late husband has already paid his brothers their shareS of their father’s estate, she will be required to prove that assertion at a trial. The other parties do not have to accept her word no matter how loudly it is delivered or how many times she calls them and their lawyers liars.

[6] It is not at all clear what Ms. Liu proposes to appeal. She says that on a motion dealing with procedural matters, Corkery J. ought to have decided that case on its merits. She says Corkery J. should have decided which version of the late husband’s will is valid. She should not have ordered her to pay costs already ordered by Verner J. And she should have decided that the late husband’s estate has nothing to do with the claims being made against it.

[7] None of this relief was before Corkery J. Moreover, she adjourned the hearing to provide more time to Ms. Liu in any event.

[8] This motion needs to be scheduled to get on with the case. However, Ms. Liu steadfastly refuses to retain counsel for the estate and herself as ordered. I tried to explain to Ms. Liu that the Rules of Civil Procedure require an estate to be represented by counsel. Rather than listening she reverted to claiming that the estate should not be in the application. That is not her decision to make. Moreover, the judge ordered Ms. Liu to get counsel as well as it is apparent that she does not understand the process or is litigating to prevent the case from moving forward. The judge provided funds from the estate to pay for counsel.

[9] Ms. Liu says that she cannot retain counsel despite trying. I do not accept that. There are literally thousands of lawyers available in Toronto for a paying brief. If Ms. Liu is having trouble attracting one, I suggest she agree to pay and that she agree to listen to their advice. I accept that a lawyer will not want to act if they are not getting paid or if the client insists on conducting herself inappropriately. Otherwise, there is no shortage of lawyers available, and it is well past time that Ms. Liu retain one as ordered.

[10] I make the following orders:

a. Ms. Liu is to retain counsel for herself and the estate of her late husband by no later than December 23, 2024;

b. Counsel for Ms. Liu and the estate shall perfect the motion for leave to appeal by no later than January 10, 2024;

c. Ms. Liu may not continue to act for herself of for the late husband’s estate in this proceeding. She must comply with the order of Corkery J. unless or until it is stayed or overruled. The Registrar of the Divisional Court is not to accept any document delivered by Ms. Liu personally and not by counsel;

d. Ms. Liu is to comply with the orders of Verner J. and Corkery J. in full forthwith (unless or until either or both are stayed or overruled);

e. If Mr. Perruccio’s clients wish to participate in the motion for leave to appeal, they shall deliver their factum and motion record (if needed) by January 24, 2025.

f. All parties shall upload their material to Case Center by January 31, 2025;

g. The Registrar shall put the motion before a panel of three judges no earlier than the week of February 3, 2025.

[11] I am concerned that Ms. Liu is using a fee waiver to bring frivolous proceedings and to act in an abuse of process as described in section 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c A.6.

[12] This proposed appeal makes little sense. Her overt refusal to follow court orders and to insist that she does not need to file sworn material, obtain counsel, or produce documents are not positions available to her. Moreover, she uses an interpreter when her oral statements to me made clear that she in quite conversant in English.

[13] I am therefore considering ordering that Ms. Liu’s fee waiver be cancelled and ordering that she may not make any further requests for a fee waiver with respect to this or any related proceeding without permission obtained in advance from a judge.

[14] Prior to making an order restricting fee waivers, I invite Ms. Liu to send written submissions by December 30, 2024 as to why she should not be required to obtain permission from a judge before she obtains any future fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act.

[15] Submissions shall be sent to the registrar and also to my Judicial Assistant at therese.navrotski@ontario.ca.

[16] Until Ms. Liu’s entitlement to future Fee Waivers is resolved, I direct the Registrar to defer granting any new Fee Waivers that may be requested by Ms. Liu in the interim.

[17] This case conference would not have been necessary but for the unreasonable conduct of Ms. Liu. She says that her documents are ready for the leave to appeal motion. But she has not filed them with the court. (Whether or when they go up on Case Center is not the point.) Ms. Liu should have retained counsel as ordered, perfected or withdrawn the motion for leave to appeal, and taken steps to comply with the outstanding orders to move this litigation toward resolution or trial. Instead, she situates herself as judge and refuses to comply because she says she should win the litigation.

[18] I exercise the discretion to order Ms. Liu to pay $1,000 in costs to partially indemnify Mr. Perruccio’s clients for the cost of his time preparing for and attending this unnecessary appearance.

[19] If Ms. Liu fails to pay these costs and the costs ordered by Verner J. by December 31, 2024, or if counsel does not formally go on the record for Ms. Liu and the estate of her late husband by December 31, 2024, Mr. Perrucio’s clients may move to dismiss this Divisional Court proceeding by sending an email to my attention in care of the Registrar.

FL Myers J

Date: December 11, 2024