Case Update: Ian Seo, Toronto — 2026 ONCA 246, SCC 42381

The file 2026 ONCA 246 is currently at the Supreme Court of Canada as an application for leave to appeal. Please refer to the official SCC record for Docket 42381 for the current status of this file.

For those seeking the official administrative record, the matter is pending review. The proceedings, officially titled Ian Seo v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, et al., are formally documented under Supreme Court of Canada file 42381.

This application arises directly from the appellate procedural decision cited as 2026 ONCA 246.

Because this open file involves the City of Toronto and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, status updates and routing information should be taken from the court registries, not from unofficial summaries.

For accurate details regarding the procedural posture of Supreme Court of Canada file 42381 and the underlying 2026 ONCA 246 ruling, consult the official public docket.

Official docket: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/42381/

Access the consolidated public records, dockets, and procedural analyses associated with this matter below.

Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

• Formatted SCC Docket 42381
• Bulletin of Proceedings (Official)
• Official SCC Docket 42381

1. Case Overviews & Timelines

• Case Overview: Supreme Court of Canada Docket 42381, 2026 ONCA 246 and 2.1B (2025 ONCA 90)
• History of the Jurisdictional Defect in Chowdhury (2025 ONCA 90): Rule 2.1 Applied Twice
• Wrong-Forum and “Abuse of Process”: Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Bernard Property (2019 ONCA 830)
• “Or” vs. “Or Otherwise”: Scaduto (2015 ONCA 733), Raji (2015 ONSC 801), and the Language of Rule 2.1.01

2. Constitutional Limits & Delegated Authority

• Jurisprudence of the Administrative Reverse Onus: Rule 2.1 vs. Established Precedent
• Rule 2.1, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and the Administrative Reverse Onus
• Rule 2.1 and the Automatic Stay: A Procedural Tension with Rule 2.01
• O. Reg. 322/24: Form 2.1A and the 2024 Amendments to Rule 2.1
• The Reverse Onus of Rule 2.1: The Practical Effect of the Automatic Stay in O. Reg. 322/24
• Form 2.1B and the Reverse Onus: Colourability and the Limits of Delegated Authority

4. Jurisdiction, Forum & Procedural Mechanics

• Rule 2.1.01 and Jurisdiction: Simpson (2016 ONCA 806), Collins (2017 ONCA 317) vs. Chowdhury
• Jurisdiction and the Initiation of Rule 2.1 Dismissals
• Rule 21.01 vs. Rule 2.1.01: "A Judge" vs. "The Court"
• Case Conference and Management: Scheduling as Adjudication (2.1B)
• Jurisdictional Contrast: Alberta, Quebec, and British Columbia
• Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Ingarra (2026 ONCA 139): When Jurisdiction Becomes "Frivolous"

5. Family Rule 1.4 & Rule 2.1

• Rule 1.4, Rule 2.1 and the Rules of Procedure: Can Ontario's Rules Committees Override the Common Law?
• O. Reg. 310/26 and Family Rule 1.4: The Shifting Framework of Summary Dismissals

Statutory References

• Appendix: Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Statutory Reference via Ontario e-Laws

This matter before the Supreme Court of Canada originates from a judicial review at the Divisional Court of Ontario, DC-25-00000672-00JR.

The case concerns a deemed refusal regarding a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted to the City of Toronto for municipal records, and a proceeding before the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. See para. 2, 2026 ONCA 246, for the court’s record of those events.

The official procedural history and filing of public documents can be reviewed at the Ontario court portal by conducting a case search:

Type of case: Divisional Court
Case number: DC-25-00000672-00JR
https://courts.ontario.ca/portal/home

Following the Divisional Court proceedings, the file was formally accepted by the Court of Appeal for Ontario registry, where it was issued case number COA-25-CV-1731.

The docket can be reviewed by searching the Ontario Court of Appeal Public Portal.

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 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.

Read the full post→