Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-617798
MOTION HEARD: 20190822
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Hyun-June Leonard Ro and Young Ro, Plaintiffs
AND:
Toronto Dominion Bank, FIJ Law and Luigi Delisio, Defendants
BEFORE: Master Abrams
IN ATTENDANCE: Hyun-June Leonard Ro, Plaintiff
HEARD: August 22, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] Mr. Ro came before me today seeking an Order granting him default judgment as against the Toronto Dominion Bank. He had earlier been before Master Brott in ex parte court. She adjourned the motion to “another ex parte court with a reporter” after recommending to Mr. Ro that he serve the Bank with his motion materials.
[2] I was sitting in regular motions today. Mr. Ro’s motion came on for a hearing, with the Bank not having been served. Between the time that Mr. Ro had been before Master Brott (August 15/19) and today, the Bank served and filed its statement of defence (i.e. on August 20/19). As I explained to Mr. Ro, the statement of defence was filed with the 10th floor and not with me. I had no involvement with his case until today.
[3] Relying on RR. 18.01(a), 18.02 and 19.01(1) and a number of cases from which he quoted, Mr. Ro submitted that the registrar ought not to have accepted the statement of defence for filing, as the Bank was out of time—with more than 30 days having elapsed since it filed a notice of intent to defend. Further, he pointed to the fact that an Order to continue is said to have been obtained by the Bank and said that “such an Order or procedure is not within the regulations within the Superior Court of Justice”.
[4] Mr. Ro indicated that he has encountered “procedural irregularities” in this matter and alleged “illegal activity”, “fraud” and “deceit” on the part of the Bank and others. He posited that to fail to grant judgment against the Bank is to fail to follow the Rules governing timelines for the service and filing of court documents—something which, he argued, will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. He suggested that if I am unwilling to grant him judgment, I may wish to speak with the Registrar about the procedural history of this case.
[5] I explained to Mr. Ro that I cannot intervene in a legal matter on behalf of any party. My role is to consider the evidence filed and submissions made and to rule accordingly. I told him that, with the Bank having filed a statement of defence, I could not afford him any relief without the Bank being on notice and being given an opportunity to respond accordingly.
[6] I know nothing about this litigation, save as has been recounted by Mr. Ro and as is reflected in the case history. I do not know whether it was or was not appropriate that the statement of defence be accepted for filing and/or why an Order to continue was obtained (save that, towards the end of his submissions, Mr. Ro indicated that he is an undischarged bankrupt). I surmise, but do not know, that the Order to continue was obtained under R. 11.
[7] Whatever Mr. Ro’s next steps in this matter, they must be taken on notice to the parties. With the Bank’s statement of defence having been filed, default judgment is not a possibility at this time. If there were procedural errors leading up to the acceptance, for filing, of the Bank’s pleading, I had no role in them. And with the only motion before me being a motion for default judgment, I have no jurisdiction to grant Mr. Ro the relief that he seeks.
[8] Finally, with this motion having been brought on a without-notice basis and with no one but Mr. Ro having been before me to make submissions, I cannot (and do not now) make any rulings on the propriety or impropriety of steps taken by anyone in respect of the plaintiffs’ claims.
“Original Signed by Master Abrams”
Master Abrams
Date: August 22, 2019