|
Presentation - Duties of Presenters. A.H. v Toronto District School Board
In A.H. v Toronto District School Board (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court ordered the applicant to provide necessary case particulars in their Notice of Application:[2]... The litigation guardians were also advised that the notice of application for judicial review lacked particulars regarding the decisions under review and the grounds for review. ...
....
[6] In addition, the litigation guardians were advised in March 2023 that the notice of application for judicial review is deficient for the same reasons as in Ye v. TDSB. The notice of application itself is bare and contains no particulars as to the decision under review or the grounds for review. It does not even identify the decision under review. The litigation guardians have attached a document entitled “Description of the Decisions” which makes arguments about the TDSB’s admission policies and attaches certain screen shots. The “Description of the Decisions” is not a proper pleading and is not part of the notice of application for judicial review. For greater clarity, the “Description of Decisions” cannot be relied upon as forming part of the Notice of Application.
[7] As a result of the litigation guardians’ continued non-compliance with the Rules, I advised the parties at the case conference that I would direct the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, a notice shall be issued pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that the court is considering dismissing the appeal pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because of the following:(a) The litigation guardians continue to be in non-compliance of Rule 7.05(3) requiring them to be represented by counsel; and
(b) The notice of application for judicial review fails to state a basis for judicial review and is devoid of merit. [8] Pursuant to the procedure provided for under Rule 2.1.01(3), the applicants have 15 days following the notice to respond with a written submission no more than 10 pages in length. The TDSB is not required to respond at this time. . Zhao v. Chao
In Zhao v. Chao (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court (Corbett J, who hears a lot of these appeals), hearing a landlord's appeal, characterized the nature of the LTB and compared it to the Small Claims Court as being suited for people who must either learn it's procedures and undertake to present their case themselves, or otherwise hire representation:[4] All parties attending the Landlord and Tenant Board are expected to become familiar with the process at the Board and the hearing process, to obtain representation if they feel that they are unable to participate in the process without that assistance. In this case, we have the landlord, who owns the unit, and chose to be self-represented rather than to engage a paralegal or lawyer or to obtain advice prior to the hearing, and who then chose to make her own decisions about what evidence to tender at the hearing. This is not a basis to permit the landlord to adduce fresh evidence after the Board’s decision.
[5] The Landlord and Tenant Board is very much like the Small Claims Court in that it has a great many people who are self-represented or are represented by agents who are inexperienced. The process before the Board will be defeated in large part if a party can avoid its failure to bring all of its evidence to the hearing by simply saying that he/she was self-represented, and did not know any better, and so should have a re-hearing on fresh evidence in this court after receiving adverse decision from the Board. In my view, through the exercise of due diligence, this evidence could have been available at the hearing and that in of itself is a complete answer to the application for fresh evidence.
|
