CITATION: Dunnill v. Dunnill, 2025 ONSC 3939
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-0013-00
DATE: 2025-07-02
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Danial Newton R.S.J.
BETWEEN:
Edward Dunnill
Appellant (Respondent)
– and –
Maria Dunnill
Respondent (Applicant)
Self represented, for the Appellant
Unrepresented, for the Respondent
HEARD at City of Thunder Bay: In writing
Overview
[1] Mr. Dunnill seeks to appeal the order of Warkentin J. dated February 16, 2024 which dismissed his motion to vary a final order of Koke J. from April 2013 made in family law proceeding with his formal spouse.
[2] As I am familiar with this case and Mr. Dunnill’s arguments[^1] I directed the registrar to send out a notice under Rule 2.1 that this appeal may be stayed or dismissed.
[3] Mr. Dunnill has responded, and these are my reasons for dismissing his appeal.
The Test under Rule 2.1.01
[4] Rule 2.1.01 provides that the court may “on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.” Dismissal under this rule can also be requested by any party to a proceeding.
[5] This rule’s purpose is “nipping in the bud actions which are frivolous and vexatious in order to protect the parties opposite from inappropriate costs and to protect the court from misallocation of scarce resources”.[^2]
[6] Rule 2.1.01 permits the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. In Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), Myers J. explained:
Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the “culture shift” mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada.[^3]
[7] As Centa J. noted in Proctor v. Penske Truck Leasing[^4]:
[6] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. A frivolous proceeding is one that is readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success. A frivolous application is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail.
[7] A vexatious action is one taken to annoy or embarrass the opposite party or is conducted in a vexatious manner.
[8] The Court of Appeal has stated that this rule is:
…an extremely blunt instrument. It is reserved for the clearest of cases, where the hallmarks of frivolous, vexatious or abusive litigation are plainly evident on the face of the pleading. Rule 2.1 is not meant to be an easily accessible alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgment or a trial.[^5]
Analysis and Disposition
[9] I say at the outset that this is not a vexatious proceeding but raher that it is a frivolous one, that is, this proceeding is devoid of merit as Justice Warkentin noted.
[10] Mr. Dunnill erroneously believes that an annulment of his marriage secured after the order of Koke J. extinguishes his obligations under that order. While his former spouse has abandoned any claim against him[^6] Legal Aid Ontario has not abandoned its claim for costs.
[11] In his submissions Mr. Dunnill relies upon a High Court Of Justice case from 1934 in which the court ruled that a wife could not, at the same time, claim an annulment and support. That is not the case here. The order of Koke J. was made before the annulment of marriage in the Philippines and is, as noted by Warkentin J., still valid.
[12] Mr. Dunnill’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
The Honourable Danial Newton R.S.J.
Released: July 2, 2025
CITATION: Dunnill v. Dunnill, 2025 ONSC 3939
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-0013-00
DATE: 2025-07-02
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
The Honourable Danial Newton R.S.J.
BETWEEN:
Edward Dunnill
– and –
Maria Dunnill
Respondent (Applicant) Respondent (Applicant) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DANIAL NEWTON R.S.J.
Released: July 2, 2025
[^1]: I made an endorsement in the proceeding on June 14, 2024.
[^2]: Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664 at para. 3.
[^3]: 2014 ONSC 6100.
[^4]: 2025 ONSC 2740.
[^5]: Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625 at para. 12.
[^6]: See endorsement of Pierce J. dated August 19, 2024.