Court File and Parties

CITATION: Lisikh v. Ontario (Ministry of Education), 2025 ONSC 1621

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 307/24

DATE: 2025-03-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: GLEB LISIKH, Moving Party

AND: HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, Responding Party

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett, Lococo, Kurke JJ.

COUNSEL: Self-Represented Moving Party

Elizabeth Guilbault, for the Responding Party

HEARD: In-writing

Endorsement

D.L. Corbett J.

[1] The motion seeking an extension of time to the review the decision of O’Brien J. dated April 15, 2024 (2024 ONSC 2177), pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, is dismissed, for the following reasons.

[2] In the impugned decision, O’Brien J. dismissed a motion to extend the time to seek judicial review from a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, dismissing Mr Lisikh’s complaint. The motion judge denied the extension motion on the basis that Mr Lisikh’s application for judicial review disclosed no apparent grounds for relief, per s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1.

[3] I agree with the motion judge, for the reasons she gave, that there is no apparent merit to Mr Lisikh’s application. The HRTO decided that Mr Lisikh lacks standing to bring the complaint, and that the program Mr Lisikh seeks to challenge is, in any event, protected by the operation of s. 14(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19. Both of these findings are reasonable.

[4] As stated by the Court of Appeal in Auciello v. Yao, 2023 ONCA 199, at para. 19:

A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination: Van Delst v. Hronowsky, 2022 ONCA 782, para. 2. This court may only interfere with the order of a single judge of this court if the judge “failed to identify the applicable principles, erred in principle or reached an unreasonable result”: Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, 462 D.L.R. (4th) 228, at para. 18.

[5] The motion judge identified the applicable principles, made no error in principle, and came to a reasonable result.

[6] The motion is dismissed.

[7] Since the Respondent did not seek costs, none are awarded.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

I agree: “Lococo J.”

I agree: “Kurke J.”

Released: March 14, 2025