Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 157/16 DATE: 20160620 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: KATHERINE LIN, Appellant
AND:
ICBC VANCOUVER HEAD OFFICE, EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BRANCH LOWER MAINLAND REGION BC, OMBUDSMAN BC, HUMAN RIGHT BC, AMAZING GRACE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, XIAOAN ZHOU, GUANG RONG and LI HAI, GRACE POINT CHURCH, PRO BONO LAW ONTARIO, EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION and LIU LUN, Respondents
BEFORE: H. Sachs J.
COUNSEL: Appellant, unrepresented Adam Hirsh, for the Respondent, Pro Bono Law Ontario
HEARD: In writing
Endorsement
[1]
Background
On May 4, 2016, I directed the Registrar, pursuant to r.2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to give notice to the Appellant that the court was considering making an order dismissing her appeal on the basis that the appeal could be the subject of an order under r. 2.1.01(1). An order may be made under that subrule if the court is of the view that a proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The Appellant was given 15 days, from receipt of the notice, to file written submissions on this matter, not to exceed ten pages in total.
2The Appellant received the notice on May 4, 2016 and has filed no submissions.
[3]
Analysis
The decision the Appellant seeks to appeal is an order dismissing her claim against the Respondents as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The Appellant’s claim against the Respondents is collectively in an amount in excess of $4,000,000, an amount well beyond the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.
4The Appellant was advised by counsel for the Respondent, Pro Bono Law Ontario, that the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to hear her appeal. The Appellant advised counsel that she intended to pursue her appeal in Divisional Court.
5This appeal is one of 15 proceedings that the Appellant has commenced in the Divisional Court in the last three years. It is clear that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Appellant has been advised of this fact and yet she is continuing to pursue her appeal in the wrong forum. By doing so, she is abusing the court’s process by causing it to waste its scarce resources on a matter that it has no jurisdiction to deal with.
[6]
Disposition
For these reasons, an order will go dismissing this appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
H. SACHS J. Date: 20160620