Court File and Parties

CITATION: Berhe v. Shoppers Drug Mart, 2025 ONSC 1447

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. 683/24

DATE: 20250305

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: YOHANNES BERHE Appellant

AND:

SHOPPERS DRUG MART; ACER CANADA; BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU

Respondents

BEFORE: Nakatsuru J.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Appellant

No one appearing for the Respondents

CONSIDERED IN WRITING at: Toronto, March 5, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Mr. Berhe seeks to appeal an order refusing to set aside the dismissal of his lawsuit in Small Claims Court. The lawsuit sought a refund of $396.62 in relation to a defective computer allegedly sold to him by the Respondent, Shoppers Drug Mart. Mr. Berhe was also ordered to pay costs of $177 to each of Acer Canada and Better Business Bureau.

[2] The Registrar was directed by Justice Myers to give notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194. On November 20, 2024, the Registrar provided a form 2.1A notice to Mr. Berhe along with a copy of the direction by Justice Myers. Mr. Berhe was given 15 days to provide written submissions in response. He was also told that in the absence of written submissions, the court could stay or dismiss his appeal.

[3] Mr. Berhe has not provided any submissions.

[4] Under Rule 2.1, this court may stay or dismiss a proceeding that appears to be on its face frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process: Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at para. 18. The power to dismiss an appeal under Rule 2.1. is to be used only in “the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 81 C.P.C. (7th) 258, at para. 8.

[5] Under s. 31(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43, appeals to this court are limited to orders for payment of more than $3,500 exclusive of costs. (See s. 2(1) of Small Claims Court Jurisdiction, O. Reg 626/00).

[6] On its face, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal. In addition, the Notice of Appeal and supporting documents are incoherent. For both reasons, this is a clear case where the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.

Nakatsuru J.

Date: March 5, 2025.