Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Imona-Russel v. Beaver Creek Institution, 2025 ONSC 3197 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 154/25 DATE: 20250623
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: DR. WILLIAM IMONA-RUSSEL, Moving Party AND: BEAVER CREEK INSTITUTION, Respondent
BEFORE: Matheson J.
COUNSEL: Self-Represented Moving Party Sara Quinn-Hogan counsel to Beaver Creek Institution
HEARD at Toronto: In writing.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The moving party has brought a motion in this Court requesting an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the decision of Deputy Judge Susman of the Small Claims Court dated August 1, 2024.
[2] The moving party has been given notice that the Court is considering making an order staying or dismissing this proceeding under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The following directions were given in regard to r. 2.1.01:
Dr. Imona-Russel has submitted a notice of motion entitled “Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal”, which has the following difficulties (subject to considering the moving party’s submissions permitted below):
The notice seeks an order “where leave to appeal is required” under s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On their face, those provisions do not apply.
The notice requests the appointment of counsel. The moving party is aware of the following decision denying him that relief: Imona-Russel v. Zap, 2025 ONCA 161.
The notice requests an extension of time to appeal from the decision of Deputy Judge Susman dated August 1, 2024. This assumes that there is a right of appeal from that decision. The decision is interlocutory – it does [not] finally dispose of the moving party’s Small Claims Court claim. There is no right of appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Small Claims Court. The right of appeal arises once the Small Claim Court renders its final decision.
Rule 2.1(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may make an order staying or dismissing a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. If it may be appropriate to make an order under subrule (1), the court shall direct the Registrar to give notice to the parties that the proceeding may be stayed or dismissed. The process provides an opportunity for the moving party to make written submissions in response, which are then considered by the Court.
The Registrar is directed to send out a notice under r. 2.1 regarding the above motion.
[3] The moving party has since made submissions in response to the r. 2.1 notice. The moving party withdraws his request for the appointment of counsel. His other submissions are summarized below.
[4] The moving party submits that the notice under r. 2.1 did not come from a judge, suggesting that it should have, and challenges the contents of the notice as well. However, the notice complies with the process in r. 2.1, including both its source and its contents. The moving party also contests the respondent’s compliance with this Court’s rules. Those submissions do not address the issue of jurisdiction to seek leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court.
[5] The moving party also makes submissions about the merits of the decision of the Deputy Judge and submits that there were errors that need attention. Those submissions do not address the issue of jurisdiction to seek leave to appeal that decision.
[6] On jurisdiction, the moving party submits that r. 62.02(1) applies subject to s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
[7] Rule 62.02(1) does not apply. Subrules 62.02(1)1 and 2 expressly state that they apply to an “order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice” (emphasis added). There is parallel language in clause 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, referring to an order of “a judge of the Superior Court of Justice”. A Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court is not a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. Nor does the third subrule apply, as set out in r. 62.02(1)3. Further, there is no appeal from the decision at issue, which is interlocutory.
[8] Subrule 2.1.01(1) authorizes the Court to dismiss a proceeding as frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. However, r. 2.1 should only be used for “the clearest of cases”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8. This is such a case because this Court has no jurisdiction.
[9] The moving party may still pursue his claim in the Small Claims Court and is apparently doing so.
[10] This proceeding is dismissed under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Matheson J.
Date: June 23, 2025