Ian Seo, Toronto
Official public record for ongoing transparency advocacy and legal engagements (SCC Docket 42381). Email: contact@ianseo.ca
Case Overview: Supreme Court of Canada Docket 42381, 2026 ONCA 246, COA-25-CV-1731, 2.1B
Case 2026 ONCA 246, the published ruling for COA-25-CV-1731, is on CanLII and is recorded on the Supreme Court of Canada docket for File No. 42381.
Official docket: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/42381/
From the decision:
[5] We agree that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A purported appeal that clearly does not engage the jurisdiction of this court is an abuse of process and is properly dismissed under r. 2.1.01: Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2025 ONCA 90, at para. 4.
[6] An order made by a single judge of the Divisional Court may not be appealed as of right to this court. Section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”), referred to by the appellant is inapplicable to such an order. If the order of the single judge of the Divisional Court is made on a motion, the route to challenge it is by a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the CJA, not by an appeal to this court: Bernard Property Maintenance v. Taylor, 2019 ONCA 830, 148 O.R. (3d) 494, at paras. 1-3. In all other cases, an appeal from an order of the Divisional Court is governed by s. 6(1)(a) of the CJA, not s. 6(1)(b). Such an appeal may only be brought with leave of this court.
The panel held that the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court applied Taylor to a case-conference direction of abeyance, held it was not appealable due to lack of right of the court (para. 6), and set the routes: a panel of the Divisional Court under section 21(5) if the direction was made on a motion; leave under section 6(1)(a) if it was not (para. 6).
The route in para. 6 is the jurisdiction: a panel of the Divisional Court, or leave.
Para. 5 states lack of jurisdiction as the actual finding: a purported appeal that clearly does not engage the Court’s jurisdiction is an abuse of process, citing Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 90, at para. 4, and is dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.
Rule 2.1.01(1) authorizes the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if it appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
In 2026 ONCA 246, the Court simultaneously determined it had no jurisdiction in para. 5, and made a finding of abuse of process in the same para.
Chowdhury vs. Collins
From 2026 ONCA 246:
[4] The City seeks an order dismissing the appeal under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, because it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. The City contends that Shore J.’s direction was procedural, and the route to challenge it is by a further proceeding in the Divisional Court. In the alternative, the City contends that an order of the Divisional Court may only be appealed to this court with leave, which the appellant has not obtained or even sought.
In para. 4, the Court of Appeal states the City’s request for a Rule 2.1.01 dismissal was based on jurisdiction (venue and leave). The Court granted that request, citing Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 90, and held the appeal did not engage its jurisdiction and was an abuse of process properly dismissed.
From Chowdhury, para. 4:
[4] The clear lack of jurisdiction is sufficient to render the motion for leave to appeal an abuse of process.
From Collins, para. 19:
[19] Ontario and Canada clearly take the view that Ms. Collins’ appeals lack merit. Absence of merit on its own, even assuming such absence, is not sufficient to justify dismissal under r. 2.1. Simpson, at para. 43, makes it clear that a r. 2.1 request is not a substitute for a motion to quash and filing the appropriate materials. The rule does not replace the bringing of a motion to quash an appeal for want of jurisdiction or for lack of merit. However, it does allow for a speedy process for disposing of proceedings and motions that on their face are frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.
Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, is the earlier decision of the same Court. Relying on Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, it held that Rule 2.1 does not replace a motion to quash an appeal for want of jurisdiction or for lack of merit.
Stare decisis leaves Collins as the operative authority on the limit of the rule. Chowdhury stated the opposite, and 2026 ONCA 246 then treated that sentence as the rule. The later decisions did not overrule Collins. They did not cite it.
A court asked to follow para. 4 of Chowdhury, or the citation of it in 2026 ONCA 246, is bound to Collins.
Directory of Records
Access the consolidated public records, dockets, and rulings associated with this matter below.
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)
Revision Ledger
- [2026-10-10] v1.1: Added Chowdhury vs. Collins.
- [2026-10-09] v1.0: Initial publication of Case Overview.
Written by Ian Seo, Toronto
Official public record for ongoing transparency advocacy and legal engagements (SCC Docket 42381). Email: contact@ianseo.ca