Tran v. Durham Condominium Corporation, 2021 ONSC 4452

Court File and Parties

OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-1885 DATE: 20210622 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Jenny Tran, Plaintiff AND: Durham Condominium Corporation No. 86, Newton Trelawney Property Management, Yellow Pine Developments Limited, and Frank Valente, Defendants

BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice J. Speyer

COUNSEL: Unrepresented, for the Plaintiff frcall89@gmail.com Kary-Anne Layng, for the Defendants klayng@laxtonglass.com

HEARD: June 21, 2021

RULING ON MOTION TO STAY ORDER MADE MARCH 22, 2021

Introduction

1Ms. Tran moves, pursuant to Rule 63.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order staying my order made on March 22, 2021, pending her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court. That order dismissed Ms. Tran’s motion for the appointment of amicus.

2While Ms. Tran’s motion record and factum in relation to this motion were not accepted for filing by the court staff, as they were irregular, they were served on counsel for respondents and provided to me at the hearing. In the interest of dealing with Ms. Tran’s motion on the merits and to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute, and given that counsel for the respondents was served with her motion materials in a timely way, I proceeded to hear the motion. Pursuant to Rule 2.01, I provided copies of Ms. Tran’s motion materials to the filing office and directed that they be received and entered into the court file. I also granted leave to Ms. Tran to file a lengthy factum and received her 83 page long factum (exclusive of list of authorities and text of statutes relied upon). At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision so that I could read Ms. Tran’s motion record and factum.

3During Ms. Tran’s submissions on the Rule 63.02 motion, it appeared to me that she wished me to make an order staying all proceedings related to her action against the defendants. In response to questions from me to clarify her position, she advised that she wishes all outstanding proceedings in her action to be stayed, while she pursues her appeal to the Divisional Court. Her answers to me, and her lengthy factum, tell me that she is overwhelmed by the number of motions presently outstanding, and that she cannot deal with them all at once.

4Counsel for the defendants advised that they take no position regarding the present motion, but that they are concerned about any delay that might result were a stay to issue.

Analysis

5Rule 63.02 does not empower me to order Ms. Tran’s action to be stayed. Rule 63.02 permits me to order a stay of an interlocutory or final order made by me on such terms as are just. The order that Ms. Tran seeks to appeal is my order denying her motion for the appointment of amicus. There is nothing in that order that needs to be stayed in order for Ms. Tran to pursue her appellate remedies.

6However, I do understand that Ms. Tran, a person with a disability, finds it difficult to pursue matters in two courts at the same time. It makes sense that no further steps be taken in relation to her Oshawa action until the Divisional Court makes a final decision in relation to her appeal. It makes sense because that will allow Ms. Tran to focus her attention on her motion for leave to appeal, and any appeal, and it makes sense because if the Divisional Court finds that I erred in my disposition of the motion to appoint amicus, then the action will proceed in a different way.

Disposition

7Therefore, while I order that the motion to stay my order of March 22, 2021 be dismissed, I direct, pursuant to Rule 1.05, that no further steps be taken in relation to Oshawa action 1885/20 until such time as the Divisional Court determines Ms. Tran’s appeal, which I understand may have been assigned court file number 252/21. For further clarity, there will be no motion hearing dates set, no further motions filed by either party except with leave of the court based on written submissions only, and no further steps taken in relation to Ms. Tran’s action 1885/20 until such time as Ms. Tran’s appeal to the Divisional Court is determined.