Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-12193
DATE: 2022/11/23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Anita Kim, Applicant
AND
Adan McIntosh, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice S. Corthorn
COUNSEL: Parties are Self-represented
HEARD: In writing, in Chambers
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction
[1] An order was made in this proceeding in December 2021, by Justice Hood. Pursuant to that order, Mr. McIntosh is precluded from filing any further motion in this proceeding, “unless it is a motion that only seeks leave of the court to bring a further motion.” If Mr. McIntosh intends to bring such a motion, then he is required to provide the applicant a minimum of 30 days’ notice.
[2] On September 20, 2022, Mr. McIntosh brought a motion in which he sought an order to recuse Justice Coats and for relief related to an order made by Justice Coats on September 16, 2022. In an endorsement dated October 3, 2022, Justice C.M. Smith dismissed the September 20, 2022 motion because there was nothing in the record to establish that Mr. McIntosh had either (a) obtained leave to bring the September 20, 2022 motion, or (b) paid any of the costs orders made against him in the proceeding.
[3] In addition, Justice C.M. Smith ordered that the court staff are “not to accept any further materials from [Mr. McIntosh], unless it is a motion, brought with thirty (30) days’ notice to [Ms. Kim] for leave to bring a further motion.” In summary, Justice C.M. Smith gave the court staff the discretion to reject materials which Mr. McIntosh seeks to file, and which do not comply with the terms of the December 2021 order of Justice Hood.
[4] In response to Justice C.M. Smith’s endorsement/order, Mr. McIntosh filed a “notice of motion for leave to appeal”. That document is dated October 3, 2022 – the date of Justice C.M. Smith’s endorsement.
The Motion in this Proceeding for Leave to Appeal Justice C.M. Smith’s Order
[5] There is nothing before the court to establish that Mr. McIntosh obtained leave of the court – as required by the December 2021 order of Justice Hood – to bring the motion for leave to appeal. Mr. McIntosh has once again failed to comply with the procedural requirement set out in Justice Hood’s December 2021 order. For that reason alone, Mr. McIntosh’s motion for leave to appeal, dated October 3, 2022, and brought in this proceeding, is dismissed.
[6] The court notes that in the title of proceeding to the October 3, 2022 notice of motion for leave to appeal, Mr. McIntosh erroneously refers to the Ontario Court of Appeal and relies on the court file number for the proceeding in this court. In other words, the title of proceeding does not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, with respect to a document in this proceeding: see r. 4.02.
[7] Based on the file number, it is clear that this proceeding was commenced in 2019. In his notice of motion for leave to appeal, Mr. McIntosh refers to the orders of Justices C.M. Smith (2022) and Hood (2021). Mr. McIntosh also refers to the May 26, 2022 order of Justice Audet. Mr. McIntosh has had approximately three years within which to become familiar with the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, and the Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no reason why he would be unable to prepare documents for this proceeding which have the correct title of proceeding.
[8] I, therefore, order the court staff not to accept from Mr. McIntosh any further materials for this proceeding unless the materials include the correct title of proceeding.
[9] The combination of the orders made by Justices Hood and Smith and this endorsement are summarized as follows:
Justice Hood: Mr. McIntosh “is not entitled to seek any future motion date from the court or to bring or file any notice of motion, unless it is a motion that only seeks leave of the court to bring a further motion. Order to go that any motion seeking leave of the court must be on a minimum of 30 days notice to the applicant rather than the six days as provided for in FLR 14(11).”
Justice Smith: “The court staff shall not accept any further materials from the respondent, Adan McIntosh, unless it is a motion, brought with thirty (30) days notice to the applicant, for leave to bring a further motion.”
This endorsement: The court staff shall not accept any further documents for this proceeding from Mr. McIntosh unless the documents include the correct title of proceeding. (See para. 8, above.)
[10] The court is not aware of Ms. Kim having filed any documents in response to Mr. McIntosh’s notice of motion for leave to appeal. Therefore, Mr. McIntosh’s motion for leave to appeal, brought in this proceeding, is dismissed without costs.
[11] The dismissal of the motion, in this proceeding, for leave to appeal is without prejudice to Mr. McIntosh commencing a proceeding in the Court of Appeal including, if appropriate, a motion for leave to appeal from the October 3, 2022 order of Justice C.M. Smith. This paragraph is not, however, intended in any way to address any extensions of time that Mr. McIntosh may require from the Court of Appeal to be entitled to commence a proceeding in that court.
[12] It is incumbent upon Mr. McIntosh to familiarize himself with the Rules of Civil Procedure relevant to appeals from a decision of the kind made by Justice C.M. Smith.
Madam Justice S. Corthorn
Date: November 23, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-12193
DATE: 2022/11/23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Anita Kim, Applicant
AND
Adan McIntosh, Respondent
COUNSEL: Parties are Self-represented
ENDORSEMENT
Madam Justice S. Corthorn
Released: November 23, 2022