Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A self-represented moving party sought review of a case management judge's directions under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.
   
• Court staff and case management authority were disputed, but the panel found the case management judge properly directed the conference herself.
   
• Filing of a 267-page factum in a Small Claims Court appeal was found to breach applicable page limits.
   
• Certificates Respecting Evidence were found, on their face, to require the moving party to obtain trial transcripts.
   
• Deference owed to case management orders on a review motion was emphasized, citing Lynch v. Ross Wilson Holdings Ltd.
   
• Proportionality principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario informed the costs award.
   

Facts of the case

Ryan Hyde, acting as a self-represented moving party, brought a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review case management directions issued by MacNeil J. on April 8, 2026. Those directions addressed the terms for obtaining and filing trial transcripts for use on an appeal, and struck out Hyde's 267-page appeal factum, with directions to file proper appeal materials. Hyde argued that the case management judge erred and that he was entitled to have his appeal scheduled in accordance with a prior order of Gibson J. dated November 29, 2024. He further argued that the case management judge erred in failing to schedule the appeal and in failing to grant relief against the responding party, VanMar Constructors Inc., for its failure to deliver responding appeal materials. MacNeil J. had also directed Hyde to bring a motion by April 24, 2026 if he wished to be relieved of the obligation to obtain and file complete trial transcripts; Hyde did not bring such a motion.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The motion was brought under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, which governs review of case management directions. The panel also referenced section 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act in noting that Hyde's only recourse from the decision was an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, with leave. Rules respecting page limits for appeal factums and obligations to obtain and file trial transcripts were central to the dispute, as was the effect of the Certificates Respecting Evidence delivered by the parties.

Reasoning and analysis

The panel, composed of Corbett, Nakatsuru, and Vermette JJ., found no merit to the review motion. It held that the case management judge had patiently and thoroughly explained her reasoning and that her conclusions were reasonable: the appeal materials filed by Hyde breached his obligations to obtain and file trial transcripts and grossly violated applicable page limits for appeal factums. The panel described the 267-page factum in a Small Claims Court appeal as preposterous, and characterized Hyde's defence of that filing, combined with his resistance to producing complete transcripts, as untenable. The panel noted that Hyde persisted in untenable factual positions before them, including disputing that the case management judge herself had directed the case management conference, and disputing that the Certificates Respecting Evidence required him to obtain transcripts. The panel found both positions contrary to the plain record. It emphasized the high level of deference owed to case management directions on a review motion, citing Lynch v. Ross Wilson Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONSC 2471 (Div. Ct.). The panel also found that the case management judge was entitled to take judicial notice of the filed appeal documents, including the Certificates, prior endorsements, the Notice of Appeal, and the 267-page factum, as a sufficient basis for her directions.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Divisional Court dismissed the review motion brought by Hyde, finding it without merit. The panel directed that proper appeal materials be filed without further delay, that no further motions be brought absent direction from the case management judge, and that MacNeil J. continue as case management judge going forward unless she directs otherwise. The panel declined to extend the time for Hyde to bring a motion regarding relief from the transcript obligation, meaning he must obtain and file complete trial transcripts or risk dismissal of his appeal, though it extended the deadline for Hyde to file proof of having ordered a full transcript to July 31, 2026. VanMar Constructors Inc., as the successful responding party, was awarded costs of the review motion fixed at $7,403.13, payable within thirty days, on a substantial indemnity basis, with the panel noting this quantum was consistent with the proportionality principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 CanLII 14579 (Ont. CA).