Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00629398-0000 DATE: 20200330 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ANDREW ROGERSON et al., Plaintiffs
– and –
HAVERGAL COLLEGE et al., Defendants
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
COUNSEL: Angela I. Salvatore for the Plaintiffs Linda Rothstein and Ren Bucholz, for the Defendants Andrea Gonsalves, for certain non-parties including a minor child referred to in these proceedings as Student “Q”
READ: March 30, 2020
Endorsement
[1] I have reviewed a letter received from counsel for the plaintiffs dated March 30, 2020. In it, the plaintiffs argue that the proposed motion by the defendants is not urgent and, in any event, should be dismissed as being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] The plaintiffs’ submissions, in the main, go to the merits of the proposed motion. Nothing contained in the letter undermines the urgency and appropriateness of having the matter heard and resolved. Moreover, the triage decision is not to be bogged down by argument on the merits in any event.
[3] As to Rule 2.1, the defendants’ notice of motion sets out cognizable causes of action that may or may not succeed on their merits. They are not frivolous on their face. Neither does the notice of motion exhibit a separate basis to be concerned that a hearing process might itself be abusive. Neither branch of the test in Scaduto v. LSUC, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 8 is made out.
[4] Having reconsidered the matter in light of the plaintiffs’ letter dated March 30, 2020, I find that the defendants’ proposed motion meets the requirement of the Notice to the Profession and is to be heard. I find expressly that the subject matter of the motion is urgent so that the earliest hearing of the motion is both necessary and appropriate. The motion is to be heard on its merits. The issue of whether it meets the requirements of the Notice to the Profession is for the triage judge and is now determined.
F.L. Myers J. Date: March 30, 2020