Mundulai v. Law Society of Ontario

Mundulai v. Law Society of Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-05-05 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 351 Docket numbers COA-24-OM-0188, M55823 Judges Huscroft, Grant; George, Jonathon C.; Favreau, Lise G. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Mundulai v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 351 DATE: 20250505 DOCKET: M55823 (COA-24-OM-0188) Huscroft, George and Favreau JJ.A. BETWEEN Aliamisse O. Mundulai Applicant (Appellant) and Law Society of Ontario Respondent (Respondent) Aliamisse O. Mundulai, acting in person Rhoda Cookhorn, for the respondent Heard: May 1, 2025 On review of the order of Justice P. Lauwers of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated January 28, 2025. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is a motion for a panel review of the decision of the motion judge denying the applicant’s request for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court. [2] The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Mundulai’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which denied his application for readmission to the Ontario Bar. The facts are set out in the decision of the Divisional Court and need not be repeated here. [3] A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination. The motion judge’s decision not to extend time is a discretionary decision that is entitled to deference. A reviewing panel may intervene only if the motion judge erred in principle or reached an unreasonable result. [4] Mr. Mundulai has not established any such error in this case. The motion judge identified the correct law and applied it. The motion judge denied his application for an extension of time because his proposed appeal had no merit and the justice of the case did not warrant granting an extension of time. We agree with this assessment. [5] It is important to emphasize that Mr. Mundulai had no right to appeal even if he had acted in a timely manner. He was required to obtain leave to appeal and was seeking an extension of time in order to do so. The lack of merit in the proposed appeal was an especially important consideration in these circumstances given the test on a motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court. [6] The application is dismissed. [7] The respondent is entitled to costs fixed at $2,000, all inclusive. “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “J. George J.A.” “L. Favreau J.A.”