Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 16-67775 DATE: 20160706 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: AMANDA CHALUPNICEK, SANDRA ISAACS, RONALD MARACLE, Plaintiffs/Applicants
AND
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA, THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF ONTARIO, GAIL BOWEN, ALBERTA JUSTICE O’GORMAN, MICHELLE S. LEE, ESQ., ONTARIO JUSTICES MARIE LINHARES DE SOUSA, PAUL KANE, AND MARK SHELSTON, TRACEY ENGELKING, ESQ., CHERYL HESS, ESQ., BELL BAKER LLP, PASQUALE SANTINI, ESQ., STEVEN APPOTIVE, ESQ., KELLY SANTINI LLP, CHRISTINE PERRUZZA, ESQ., THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, (HER MAJESTY) QUEEN ELIZABETH, ELIZABETH ALEXANDRIA MARY, Defendants/Respondents
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
HEARD: By Requisition
Endorsement
[1] On April 26, 2016, Master Calum MacLeod (as he then was) dismissed this action without costs pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. By unsigned Notice of Appeal filed on May 24, 2016, the Plaintiffs/Applicants seek an order setting aside the Master’s order and reinstating the action.
[2] By written requests, the Defendants/Respondents, Steven Appotive, Cheryl Hess, Pasquale Santini, Bell Baker LLP and Kelly Santini LLP and the Defendants/Respondents Ottawa Children’s Aid Society, Tracy Engelking (incorrectly named as Tracey Engelking Esq.) and Gail Bowen seek a dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.
[3] At the outset, I note that the appeal is intended to be heard in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. Since the order being appealed is from a final order of a case management master, an appeal lies to the Divisional Court pursuant to Section 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43. The Plaintiffs have commenced this appeal in the wrong court.
[4] Resort to the attenuated process under Rule 2.1 has been endorsed by our Court of Appeal [1], but that Rule has yet to be applied to an appeal. Rule 2.1.01(1) applies to “proceedings” and Rule 2.1.02(1) applies to “motions.” Rule 1.03 defines a “proceeding” as an “action or application.” I conclude that Rule 2.1 has no applications to an appeal. Rule 61 sets out, in detail, the procedural aspects of dealing with an appeal from orders which finally determine the rights of the parties.
[5] The Defendants/Respondents may bring a motion to dismiss the appeal prior to the scheduled date of September 29, 2016. I make no order as to costs.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Date: July 6, 2016