CITATION: Singh v. 260 Wellesley Residences, 2025 ONSC 94
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 717/24 DATE: 20250106
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. CORBETT J.
BETWEEN:
Gurdeep Singh
Self-Represented
Applicant
– and –
260 Wellesley Residences
Charlie Bobrowsky, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD in Writing: Dec. 23, 2024
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] Mr Singh initiated a motion to review the decision of Myers J. (2024 ONSC 6928) before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.
[2] By direction on December 17, 2024, Mr Singh was directed as follows:
The registrar is directed to issue a notice pursuant to r. 2.1 that the court is considering dismissing Mr Singh's review motion as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process as a result of the following concerns:
Mr Singh has not paid rent since March 2024.
The impugned order of the LTB granted the landlord's request for eviction as a result of non-payment of rent.
Th eviction order has been enforced.
In seeking an extension of time to challenge the impugned LTB order, Mr Singh did not challenge the facts set out in paras. 1 and 2. Rather, Mr Singh raised issues about the conduct of persons and entities unconnected to the landlord.
Justice Myers held:
Even if Mr. Singh proves that everything that he says happened to him, none of it is relevant to an appeal from the eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board. Mr. Singh concedes that he stopped paying rent. The landlord does not have to bear the burden of a tenant’s financial embarrassment even if caused by government wrongdoing. Mr. Singh has no right to live in the landlord’s premises rent-free.
Put in other words, Myers J. held that the allegations made by Mr Singh do not constitute a legal excuse for non-payment of rent, and thus do not afford a basis to impugn the decision of the LTB. This conclusion appears to be sound in law and grounded in the record before Myers J.
- Having not paid rent since March 2024, and having no legal excuse for this long-term default in his basic obligation to his landlord, it appears that Mr Singh has no arguable substantive basis for an appeal of the impugned LTB order. Accordingly, it appears that Myers J. made no error in concluding that the appeal had no prospect of success and that, therefore, an extension to bring that appeal should not be granted.
Given the upcoming holiday period, Mr Singh shall have until January 10, 2025, to respond to the r. 2.1 notice.
Responding parties shall not deliver responding submissions unless this court subsequently directs otherwise.
[3] Mr Singh responded as follows:
The Court is directed to review the information already submitted.
All the points raised have already been mentioned. In fact if the information submitted was reviewed thoroughly, such a review would not have happened.
The review is incorrect, and factually wrong/ false. It misses the fundamental point of gross violations of Human Rights and Employment Law by Government, Government Agencies, and Companies. The same agencies/ offices which are supposed to protect the fundamental human rights and constitution of Canada. It is Abuse of power by these agencies and offices.
Please review the information already submitted, all these questions have already been answered in previous submissions.
$15 B has been added in the Resolution for another incorrect review by the Canadian Judicial System.
Please process the review at the earliest.
[4] The court then directed as follows:
Mr Singh has responded to the r. 2.1 notice by stating that the court's concerns have all been addressed in prior submissions.
This is not an acceptable response to the r. 2.1 notice. The court directed the notice be issued in light of the materials provided by Mr Singh previously.
The court will give Mr Singh one further opportunity to respond.
Mr Singh may respond to the court's concerns in a single document setting out his complete response to the r. 2.1 notice, and he shall have until January 10th to respond, as previously stated.
[5] Mr Singh responded as follows:
The Divisional Court’s Review is incorrect and false. And does not uphold the values of the Canadian Judicial System.
The court has completely dismissed Gross Violations of human rights, employment law and harassment and intimidation by the Government, Government Agencies, and Companies [including Crown companies] as trivial.
The justice has misused his powers to ridicule people killed in Terrorist Attacks, got facts wrong with incorrect dates. Made false claims.
The court is directed to summon all the respondents collectively for working in a collaborative way to harass, intimidate, a Canadian Citizen.
Potentially, the court is working collaboratively with all the respondents who have committed these violations to continue to inflict financial hardship. With literal sanctions imposed by Government, Government Agencies.
The review is incorrect, and factually wrong/ false. It misses the fundamental point of gross violations of Human Rights and Employment Law by Government, Government Agencies, and Companies. The same agencies/ offices which are supposed to protect the fundamental human rights and constitution of Canada. It is Abuse of power by these agencies and offices.
$15 B has been added in the Resolution for another incorrect review by the Canadian Judicial System.
Please process the review at the earliest.
[6] The court then dismissed Mr Singh’s review motion on December 23, 2024, on the following basis:
Mr Singh's motion to review the order of Myers J. is dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As a consequence of Mr Singh's responses to the r. 2.1 notice,, it is ordered that Mr Singh may not commence or continue any legal proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice (including the Small Claims Court and the Divisional Court) against the respondent landlord or any of its agents, representatives or employees, or in respect to or arising out of his tenancy with the respondent landlord, without first obtaining prior written permission from an administrative judge of the Divisional Court or their delegate.
Reasons
Myers J. explained to Mr Singh that his allegations against "Government, Government Agencies, and Companies [including Crown companies]" are not, in law, an excuse for Mr Singh's failure to pay rent to the respondent landlord.
In his review motion, Mr Singh repeats the arguments rejected by Myers J. and argues that Myers J. was wrong to reject them. He provides no legal basis for this argument.
In the email directing notice be given under r. 2.1, the court raised concerns that there did not appear to be any legal basis for Mr Singh's review motion. Mr Singh responded by again repeating his assertion of error below, without (a) providing even a semblance of an argument that his allegations afford an excuse for not paying rent to his landlord or (b) addressing the points raised expressly by the court. Out of an abundance of caution, the court afforded Mr Singh one last opportunity to explain a legal basis for is review motion. Mr Singh again repeated his allegations against "Government, Government Agencies, and Companies [including Crown companies]" without explaining why these allegations could give rise to a legal excuse for not paying the landlord rent as it fell due.
Enough is enough. Mr Singh has been given multiple opportunities to provide a reasoned basis for his review motion and has failed to do so. By simply repeating his prior allegations, without addressing the court's concerns, Mr Singh has been wasting the court's time, and should not be permitted to pursue his allegations further without prior judicial oversight.
Ordinarily, I would afford Mr Singh an opportunity to address the court's additional terms that provide for oversight of his access to the justice system. I am satisfied that no purpose would be served by doing that: Mr Singh's appeal was without merit, his review motion was without merit, and he has failed repeatedly to provide a reasoned response to the court's directions. It is evident that he is behaving vexatiously, and will probably continue to do so unless his access to the justice system is supervised.
[7] The decision dismissing Mr Singh’s review motion and imposing ancillary orders, was released to the parties by email on December 23, 2024. This formal endorsement is released for purposes of publication on legal databases on January 6, 2025.
“D.L. Corbett J.”
Released by Email: December 23, 2024
Formal Endorsement Released: January 6, 2025
CITATION: Singh v. 260 Wellesley Residences, 2025 ONSC 94
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 717/24 DATE: 20250106
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. CORBETT J.
BETWEEN:
Gurdeep Singh
Applicant
– and –
260 Wellesley Residences
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.
Released by Email: December 23, 2024
Formal Endorsement Released: January 6, 2025