Court File and Parties

OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-850 DATE: 20211007 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Janet Irene Knoblauch, Applicant/Respondent AND: Duane James Knoblauch, Respondent /Appellant

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice R.E. Charney

COUNSEL: Janet Irene Knoblauch, Self-Represented Duane James Knoblauch, Self-Represented

HEARD: In-Writing

Endorsement

[1] On September 27, 2021, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the Appellant that the court is considering dismissing the appeal pursuant to R. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process for the following reasons:

[2] The Appellant purports to appeal from the decision of Fryer J. dated August 24, 2021, dismissing his 14B motion. The Endorsement of Fryer J. indicates that the motion sought no relief but was a complaint about the Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO).

[3] It is also unclear why the Appellant has filed a Notice of Appeal, rather than an Application for Leave to Appeal. The decision of Fryer J. is an interlocutory decision and the Appellant must obtain leave to appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43.

[4] I have reviewed the submissions of the Appellant dated October 5, 2021. In my view these submissions fail to adequately address the issues raised above. The Appellant continues to complain about the conduct of the DRO at a July 8, 2021 session. He also alleges that he is entitled to “evidence” from a court proceeding on January 16, 2017 and a mediation dated November 22, 2017. He also indicates that he is unable to understand legal process.

[5] The Appellant’s complaint is not the proper subject of an appeal. DROs are senior family law lawyers appointed to conduct family law case conferences. DROs do not have authority to make orders. The DRO did not make any orders at the July 8, 2021 session, and there is therefore nothing from that session that can be the subject of an appeal.

[6] Moreover, as indicated above, the decision of Fryer J. is an interlocutory decision and the Appellant must obtain leave to appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43.

[7] For these reasons I find that this appeal is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the Court, and the appeal is hereby dismissed pursuant to R. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Justice R.E. Charney

Date: October 7, 2021