Ontario (Attorney General) v. Persons Unknown

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Persons Unknown Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2020-08-24 Neutral citation 2020 ONCA 541 Docket numbers C68536, M51713 Judges Pepall, Sarah E. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Persons Unknown, 2020 ONCA 541 DATE: 20200824 DOCKET: M51713 (C68536) Pepall J.A. (Motion Judge) BETWEEN Attorney General for Ontario Respondent (Responding Party) and Persons Unknown Respondents and Hasina Nanji, Indra Gordon and Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario Appellants (Moving Parties) Benjamin Ries for the moving parties, Hasina Nanji, Indra Gordon and the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario Domenic Polla for the responding party, Attorney General for Ontario Kristin Ley, for the responding party, the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario Heard: August 21, 2020 by videoconference REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Before me, the moving party seeks directions but more particularly seeks an order for an expedited appeal of the August 2, 2020 order of Myers J. of the Superior Court of Justice. [2] On July 6, 2020, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice granted an order that resulted in the end of the moratorium on residential evictions in Ontario as of July 31, 2020. The moving parties seek to reinstate that moratorium and have commenced proceedings to set aside the July 6, 2020 order. [3] The moving parties brought a motion for an urgent stay of the July 6, 2020 order until the application to set aside that order could be heard. On August 2, 2020, Myers J. dismissed the motion for the stay. He noted at paras. 32 and 33 of his reasons that balancing “the risk of COVID-19 for the subset of evicted, vulnerable tenants and mortgagors who may end up homeless or in shelters against the economic risk to landlords and mortgagees of a further delay of evictions” reflected policy choices for the government. However, if the matter were to proceed, he directed that one or more case conferences were to be held to determine process and parties. [4] In response to the moving parties’ request for an expedited appeal, the Attorney General advises that it intends to bring a motion to quash the appeal on the grounds that this court lacks jurisdiction. It has no objection in principle to the appeal being expedited but submits that the motion to quash should be heard first. [5] There is a serious threshold issue as to whether this court has jurisdiction and the motion to quash should be heard before scheduling the appeal. That said, the motion to quash should be heard immediately. The request for an expedited appeal will be adjourned to the panel hearing the motion to quash so that it may await the outcome of that motion. [6] The parties before me advised that they were content to proceed with the motion to quash in writing. Counsel for the Attorney General and for the moving parties advised of reasonable time frames within which they could have their materials prepared and finalized. Within this expedited framework, the Attorney General is to serve and file its motion to quash materials by August 28, 2020 and the moving parties are to serve and file their responding materials by September 2, 2020. Counsel for the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario advised that they support the Attorney General’s motion but do not plan to file any materials. No other parties appeared and in any event, no case conference has been held in the Superior Court of Justice to address the issue of parties as directed by Myers J. [7] In conclusion, the motion to quash is scheduled to be addressed in writing before a panel on September 10, 2020, and the moving parties’ request for an expedited appeal is adjourned to that day to be dealt with in writing after the motion to quash has been addressed. [8] There shall be no order of costs of the motion for directions. “S.E. Pepall J.A.”