CITATION: Ye v. Toronto District School Board, 2024 ONSC 869
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-653-JR
DATE: 20240205
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Lococo & Davies JJ.
BETWEEN:
MAO YE
Self-represented, Applicant
Applicant
– and –
TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Jennifer P. Saville, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: February 5, 2024
Sachs J. (Orally)
[1] This is a motion pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990 c. C43 to set aside or vary the decision of Nishikawa J. dated May 15, 2023, in which she dismissed Mr. Ye’s application for judicial review.
[2] For reasons given orally, we denied Mr. Ye’s request to adjourn his motion. Mr. Ye then stated that he did not wish to make any oral submissions. He did not seek to withdraw his motion. We indicated that we would proceed with the motion and that we would call upon the respondent for its oral submissions. We also made it clear to Mr. Ye that we might dispose of the motion today and that we might deal with the question of costs. Mr. Ye decided that he wished to leave the courtroom and the motion proceeded in his absence.
[3] This motion is not a hearing de novo. In order to succeed the moving party must demonstrate that the motion judge made an error of law or a palpable and overriding error of fact.
[4] Mr. Ye alleges that the motion judge misapprehended the record before her. We see no merit to that submission.
[5] Mr. Ye argues that the motion judge erred in law when she found that he had no private or public interest standing to bring his application for judicial review. We disagree.
[6] The motion judge correctly enunciated the law on both private and public interest standing and her application of the law to the facts of this case discloses no error.
[7] Mr. Ye submits that the motion judge erred when she found that his application was not a proper matter for judicial review. Again, we disagree.
[8] The motion judge correctly cited the law respecting the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act and correctly concluded that the Divisional Court did not have the statutory authority to grant the relief that Mr. Ye is seeking in his application.
[9] Mr. Ye submits that the motion judge’s decision compromised his constitutional right to access to the courts. As put by him, by granting the motion to quash, the motion judge closed off his ability to argue his application on the merits.
[10] Access to the courts does not mean that a court cannot control the use of its scarce resources by quashing a proceeding where it is plain and obvious that a litigant has no standing and the court has no jurisdiction.
[11] Finally, Mr. Ye argues that the hearing was procedurally unfair because the motion judge acted as both the administrative judge and the hearing judge with respect to the motion to quash. Absent a demonstration of some behavior that would meet the high threshold needed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias, there is nothing improper about an administrative judge hearing the merits of a motion that they scheduled.
[12] For these reasons, the motion before us is dismissed.
COSTS
[13] As the successful party, the respondent is entitled to its costs of this motion, which we fix in the amount requested of $5,579.50, all inclusive.
[14] The need for the moving party’s approval as to form and content to the order arising from these reasons is dispensed with.
Sachs J.
I agree
Lococo J.
I agree
Davies J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 5, 2024
Date of Written Release: February 16, 2024
CITATION: Ye v. Toronto District School Board, 2024 ONSC 869
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-653-JR
DATE: 20240205
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Lococo & Davies JJ.
BETWEEN:
MAO YE Applicant
– and –
TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sachs J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 5, 2024
Date of Written Release: February 16, 2024