Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant attempted to appeal a Divisional Court case conference endorsement in the Ontario Superior Court, raising a jurisdictional question.

• Under section 21 of the Courts of Justice Act, only the Divisional Court has the authority to vary or set aside its own endorsements or decisions.

• Allegations of fraud and unrelated grievances were found to be irrelevant to the narrow jurisdictional issue before the court.

• The appellant was deemed properly served despite objecting to the form of address used in the email delivery.

• The Superior Court ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the motion and dismissed it on that basis.

• Costs were left to be addressed through written submissions if the parties could not agree.

Background and procedural history

Darrell Hails, the appellant, brought a motion before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking to appeal a case conference endorsement issued by Justice Jensen of the Divisional Court. The endorsement was issued as part of a prior proceeding involving Andrea and Chad Geauvreau, the respondents. The appellant was self-represented, while the respondents were represented by counsel.

At the outset of the motion hearing, Mr. Hails requested an adjournment, stating he had obtained new evidence which he believed would prove allegations of fraud by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). However, the court found that the proposed new evidence was not relevant to the legal issue at hand—namely, whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to vary or appeal a Divisional Court endorsement. As such, the request for adjournment was denied.

The appellant also claimed he had not been properly served with the respondents’ motion materials because the email did not address him by his preferred name format, “Darrell (Given Name): Hails.” He admitted receiving the email but chose to delete it for that reason. The court found that service was proper and that the appellant had a fair opportunity to respond.

Jurisdictional issue and court’s analysis

The core issue was whether the Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a case conference endorsement issued by a judge of the Divisional Court. Section 21 of the Courts of Justice Act governs who may hear and vary decisions within the Divisional Court. The court noted that while paragraph 21(5) refers specifically to motions, paragraphs 21(1) and (2) cover broader “proceedings.” Taken together, these provisions make it clear that any matter decided by the Divisional Court must be addressed within that same court—either by a single judge or by a panel.

Justice Flaherty concluded that, as a judge of the Superior Court, she lacked jurisdiction to review or alter a decision of the Divisional Court. The motion was therefore dismissed.

Additional matters and conclusion

While the respondents also argued that the motion lacked merit, the court declined to comment on that issue, since it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter in the first place. As the respondents were successful in resisting the motion, the court addressed costs. If the parties could not agree on costs, the court invited brief written submissions according to a set schedule.

The case illustrates the importance of understanding and respecting the jurisdictional boundaries between Ontario’s courts. Attempting to bypass proper appellate procedures by re-routing a matter to a lower court is impermissible and will be summarily dismissed.