Kandolo-Kwabanza v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Applying the established factors for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal for failure to perfect, and having considered the merits under the 'justice of the case' factor, the court concluded the appeal had no merit and therefore upheld Gillese J.A.'s refusal to set aside the dismissal; the review application was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 222
- Parties
- Appellant: Pedro Kandolo-Kwabanza; Respondent: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Motion for Review of Registrar's Dismissal for Delay of Appeal Not Perfected
- Outcome
- Application to review dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Delay, Perfection of Appeal, Striking Pleadings for Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action, Costs, Leave to Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pedro Kandolo-Kwabanza
Appellant
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Motion for Review of Registrar's Dismissal for Delay of Appeal Not Perfected
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar's dismissal for failure to perfect the appeal should be set aside
- 2 Whether the appellant demonstrated an intention and explanation sufficient to extend time to perfect
- 3 Whether the underlying appeal had merit such that justice requires reinstatement
Ratio Decidendi
Applying the established factors for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal for failure to perfect, and having considered the merits under the 'justice of the case' factor, the court concluded the appeal had no merit and therefore upheld Gillese J.A.'s refusal to set aside the dismissal; the review application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application to review dismissed
Orders
- Application to review dismissed
- Responding party entitled to costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kandolo-Kwabanza v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-03-25 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 222 Docket numbers C56277, M42255 Judges Epstein, Gloria Jean; Pepall, Sarah E.; van Rensburg, Katherine Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Kandolo-Kwabanza v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2014 ONCA 222 DATE: 20140325 DOCKET: M42255 (C56277) Epstein, Pepall and van Rensburg JJ.A. BETWEEN Pedro Kandolo-Kwabanza Appellant (Applicant) and The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Respondent (Responding Party) Pedro Kandolo-Kwabanza, appearing in person Michelle Gibbs, for the responding party Heard and released orally: March 21, 2014 On a motion to review the order of Justice Eileen Gillese of this court dated February 27, 2013 from an order of the Registrar dated February 8, 2013 dismissing for delay the appeal of the order of Justice Andra Pollak of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 15, 2012. ENDORSEMENT [1] In a statement of claim issued March 1, 2012 the applicant claims $18,000,000 in damages against the responding party, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”), arising out of its investigation and disposition of his complaint against his former physician. The College brought a motion to strike the claim on the basis, among other things, that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. [2] On October 15, 2012, Pollak J. struck out the claim without leave to amend. The applicant appealed but did not perfect his appeal. The Registrar of this court dismissed the appeal for delay on February 8, 2013. The applicant moved to set aside the dismissal order and extend the time to perfect. By order dated February 27, 2013, Gillese J.A. dismissed his motion. The applicant moved to have the decision of Gillese J.A. reviewed. The motion for review was dismissed for delay on July 10, 2013. The applicant obtained an order re-instating his motion for review on terms including that it proceed this week, on a peremptory basis. [3] In her detailed endorsement, Gillese J.A. applied the well-known factors a court should consider in deciding whether to set aside a Registrar’s order for failure to perfect an appeal; namely, whether the applicant had an intention to perfect within the time allotted, the length of the delay, any explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the responding party caused by the delay, and the justice of the case. [4] This last factor requires a consideration of the merits of the appeal. In this regard, Gillese J.A. held, correctly in our view, that the appeal has no merit. [5] There is no reason to interfere with the order of Gillese J.A. [6] The application to review is therefore dismissed. The responding party is entitled to costs fixed in the amount of $5000 inclusive of HST and disbursements. There will also be an order dispensing with the need for approval of the order of this court as to form and content. “Gloria Epstein J.A.” “S.E. Pepall J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.”