SHAKERI v CONDO CORPORATION PLAN NO. 0524360

The Applicant applied for permission to Appeal a decision of Justice Pentelechuk dismissing his various Applications. The Applicant requested that a different Justice hear his Application, but the Case Management Officer advised that Rule 14.5(2) mandates that an Application seeking leave to Appeal must be heard by the Justice who made the original Order.

Pentelchuk J.A. ultimately dismissed the Application. The Applicant failed to identify any error in the decision of the Court, and thus there was no basis to grant permission to Appeal. Further, the issues to be heard on Appeal were now moot since the underlying dispute was heard in a Special Chambers Hearing.

The Court also considered if filing restrictions should be imposed on the Applicant. The Applicant had avoided paying $3,700 in filing fees for five Appeals and six Applications by way of fee waivers. Justice Pentelchuk considered Rule 1.2, and the burden that the Applicants conduct has had on the Respondents and the Court. Pentelchuk J.A. granted an Order prohibiting the Applicant from bringing further Applications or Appeals in the Court of Appeal without first getting permission from the Court. The Court also held that the Applicant was no longer entitled to rely on a fee waiver without first obtaining a Fiat from the Case Management Officer.