|
Civil Litigation - Orders - By Registrar. Robson v. Law Society of Ontario
In Robson v. Law Society of Ontario (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the status of a registrar's 'administrative dismissal', here in mucky appellate interlocutory proceedings:[27] Second, properly characterized, the Registrar’s dismissal is neither an order nor a decision within the meaning of r. 61.16(5). The parties agree the Registrar did not make an order so no more need be said on that score. In my view, in dismissing the Review Motion, the Registrar did not make a decision either. The Registrar simply did as the Panel Order dictated and administratively dismissed the Review Motion. It was the Panel that made the decision stipulating that failure to comply with the deadline would result in dismissal of the Review Motion – not the Registrar.
[28] The wording of the email correspondence from the Court staff to the parties confirms this: “As per the [Panel Order], if you did not perfect by that time, the matter would be administratively dismissed” and “[T]he above-noted motion has now been administratively dismissed in accordance with the Panel’s decision dated December 18, 2023” (emphasis added).
[29] I do not accept that Sickinger suggests otherwise. It is correct that, at para. 1 of Sickinger, Brown J.A. refers to the “administrative dismissal” of the appellant’s appeal for delay. However, he immediately defines that act as the “Dismissal Order” and later describes the process the Registrar followed in making the Dismissal Order. The Registrar sent the parties a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for Delay, advising them the appeal would be dismissed unless perfected within a specific time. When the appeal was not perfected in time, the Registrar issued the Dismissal Order: Sickinger, at paras. 16-17. Therefore, in Sickinger, as the affected party, the appellant could move under r. 61.16(5) to set aside the Registrar’s order.
[30] It is somewhat unfortunate that the January 4, 2024 Email indicated that if Mr. Robson intended to perfect the Review Motion, a single judge motion to reopen and extend the deadline to perfect could be filed with the Court. However, jurisdiction can often be a tricky matter, as the long-standing debate between interlocutory and final matters exemplifies. In any event, it is for the Court to decide whether it has jurisdiction. For the reasons given, in my view, a single judge lacks jurisdiction to hear the Current Motion. . Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Bokserman
In Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Bokserman (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal made the interesting point that a registrar's order is administrative in nature (not apparently judicial):[25] In any event, given that any procedural flaws associated with the earlier assignment have been corrected, there is no doubt that a new order to continue could validly be issued. An order to continue, signed by the Registrar, is in the nature of an administrative action. If necessary, it would have been reasonable to issue a new order to continue: Outfront Media Canada LP v. Clarity Outdoor Media Inc., 2017 ONSC 2136, at para. 68.
|
