Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant filed a motion to set aside a prior decision dismissing his late judicial review, which was ultimately deemed frivolous and vexatious.

• The court confirmed the 30-day limitation under the Judicial Review Procedure Act began when the ICRC decision was sent to the applicant and his counsel.

• Allegations of bias and misconduct raised against the judge and opposing counsel were found to be baseless and inappropriate.

• The motion was filed 22 days late without seeking an extension of time, violating procedural rules.

• The court emphasized that repeated procedural non-compliance and unfounded accusations constituted an abuse of process.

• The application was dismissed under Rule 2.1 as lacking legal merit and undermining the integrity of the judicial process.

Background and regulatory history

Craig Rowe, a registered nurse since 2000, became the subject of a professional investigation by the College of Nurses of Ontario following incidents at Kemptville District Hospital. In December 2019, the hospital submitted a mandatory report regarding his conduct, prompting the College to initiate an investigation. On April 6, 2022, the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) reviewed the matter and, on June 6, 2022, directed Mr. Rowe to appear for a formal caution. The decision was sent to Mr. Rowe and his legal representative.

Despite receiving the decision in June 2022, Mr. Rowe did not seek a judicial review until December 21, 2022, 198 days later. He also missed the deadline to request a review by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB). The motion judge who initially heard the matter refused to extend the time for judicial review, finding the delay unexplained and the merits weak.

Motion to set aside and Rule 2.1 proceedings

Mr. Rowe later filed a motion to set aside that decision. The College responded with a request under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have the motion dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The court agreed to consider that request. Justice Labrosse noted the procedural confusion and delay in addressing the Rule 2.1 request but confirmed that it remained a live issue.

The motion to set aside raised numerous issues, including allegations of judicial bias and misconduct by the College’s counsel. The court noted that these claims were made without evidence and not raised in the original motion. Mr. Rowe also failed to follow timelines under Rule 61.16, bringing his motion 22 days late without seeking leave to extend the deadline.

Court’s analysis and application of Rule 2.1

Justice Labrosse applied Rule 2.1, which allows courts to dismiss proceedings that are clearly frivolous, vexatious, or abusive. The court emphasized that this rule should be used sparingly and only in the clearest of cases. However, in this instance, the applicant’s conduct—including baseless accusations, non-compliance with deadlines, and attempts to reargue already-decided matters—demonstrated clear abuse of process.

The judge found that Mr. Rowe’s filings failed to engage with the merits of the original decision and instead relied on inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims. The motion to set aside did not demonstrate any error by the original judge. The court concluded that the motion was meritless, filed out of time, and used to improperly attack the integrity of opposing counsel and the court.

Conclusion and result

Justice Labrosse dismissed the motion to set aside under Rule 2.1. The decision reaffirmed that procedural timelines matter, that judicial decisions must be respected, and that meritless allegations will not be tolerated. Costs were left open for further written submissions. This case underscores the importance of procedural discipline in judicial review proceedings and the court’s authority to protect its process from abuse.