|
Civil Litigation Cases - Dismissal (or Stay) of Action (by Defendant) - General [R21.01(3)]. Amaro v. The Chiefs of Ontario
In Amaro v. The Chiefs of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought by the applicant against the refusal of the Chiefs of Ontario ('COO'), "a private voluntary association of First Nations Chiefs in Ontario", which declined "to support his cause and intervene with political advocacy to address the injustice illustrated by his personal experience".
The court considers an R21.01(3) summary dismissal motion, here brought in a JR quashing context (the court makes no references to R14.09, which makes R21 apply to applications - including JRs):[3] At issue is whether it is “plain and obvious” that Mr. Amaro’s application cannot succeed or whether the respondent’s motion should be dismissed as an abuse of process against a vulnerable self-represented litigant and manifestation of “institutional stonewalling” by the respondent.
....
2. Is it plain and obvious this judicial review application will fail?
[48] The test on a motion to quash an application for judicial review asks whether it is plain and obvious or beyond doubt that the judicial review application would fail: Beaucage v. Métis Nation of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 633 (Div. Ct.) at para. 19; Adams v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONSC 325 (Div. Ct.), at para. 19; Certified General Accountants Assn. of Canada v. Canadian Public Accountability Board 2008 CanLII 1536 (ON SCDC), at para. 39.
|
