Bogue v. Law Society of Ontario

Bogue v. Law Society of Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-06-04 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 452 Docket numbers M54666, M54892, M54916 Judges Huscroft, Grant; Coroza, Steve A.; Monahan, Patrick J. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Bogue v. Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONCA 452 DATE: 20240604 DOCKET: M54666, M54892 & M54916 Huscroft, Coroza and Monahan JJ.A. DOCKET: M54666, M54892 BETWEEN Glenn Bogue Moving Party and The Law Society of Ontario Respondent DOCKET: M54916 AND BETWEEN Glenn Bogue Appellant and Colin Bogue Respondent Glenn Bogue, acting in person Joshua Elcombe, for the respondent Law Society of Ontario Liza Saad, for the respondent Colin Bogue Heard: in writing REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The moving party, Glenn Bogue, also known as Spirit Warrior, has three motions before this court, each for a panel review of an order by a single judge: M54666, M54892 and M54916. Two of the motions stem from Mr. Bogue’s efforts to appeal the decision of Corbett J., which dismissed his appeal from the LSO’s decision to suspend his license under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 2023 ONSC 3654. The third motion stems from a separate piece of litigation regarding the administration of Mr. Bogue’s mother’s property: 2023 ONSC 1642. The background to these motions is set out in Brown J.A.’s Directions (2024 ONCA 264) and need not be repeated here. [2] On April 9, 2024, Brown J.A. directed the Registrar to initiate this court’s standard process under r. 2.1.02 in respect of all three motions. He found that Mr. Bogue has ignored his obligation to pursue his appeals in an expeditious manner, instead opting to bring motions and panel reviews on procedural rather than substantive issues. Brown J.A. also directed the Registrar to give notice to Mr. Bogue that pursuant to s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, the court was proposing to revoke existing fee waivers he has been granted and restrict the granting of any further fee waivers. [3] We are satisfied that the motions should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to r. 2.1.02. Mr. Bogue raises no cogent objections to the Paciocco J.A. Order, the Hourigan J.A. Order, or the Thorburn J.A. Order. He has repeatedly failed to move his appeals forward, at each juncture opting instead to bring a new motion or panel review instead of complying with deadlines and extended deadlines. Mr. Bogue has no appeals extant before this court, only panel review motions. As Brown J.A. emphasized, that is not a proper use of the panel review motion procedure available under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act. [4] Accordingly, the motions are dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.02 and Mr. Bogue’s fee waivers are revoked pursuant to s. 4.10. “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “S. Coroza J.A.” “P.J. Monahan J.A.”