Case Conference — Superior Court: Jurisdiction and Initiating Rule 2.1

The most direct application of Rule 2.1 on jurisdictional grounds within the Divisional Court occurs during case conferences and related case-management processes. A case conference is ordinarily an administrative step used to set timetables, order transcripts, or settle the contents of an appeal record. In some matters it has also become the point at which a single judge initiates a Rule 2.1 inquiry into whether a proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, including where the concern is lack of jurisdiction or prematurity.

The decision in Montford v. Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine et al., 2026 ONSC 4273, records one instance of this sequence. The reasons state that the Rule 2.1 notice followed a case conference:

[5] Following a case conference with the parties, I asked the Registrar of the Divisional Court to issue a notice under r. 2.1. I also issued directions advising the parties I was concerned the application in this court was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process for the following reasons:

1. Although the Tribunal initially dismissed Mr. Montford’s application, it subsequently allowed a request to reconsider that decision. As a result, the Tribunal process is ongoing.
2. Absent exceptional circumstances, the court will not interfere in tribunal processes until they are complete.
3. Allegations of bias or other procedural unfairness do not usually on their own demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify the court’s intervention.
4. If Mr. Montford is unsuccessful when the Tribunal issues its final order, he would have the opportunity to seek judicial review of that decision, including the interim decisions and procedures.

The reasons given for the summary dismissal—that the tribunal process was ongoing and that exceptional circumstances justifying intervention were not shown—address prematurity and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Prematurity is ordinarily raised by a formal motion to quash. In Montford, the case-management process led directly to a Rule 2.1 notice rather than a direction that the respondent bring a motion. The result was a summary disposition on jurisdictional grounds without a full motion record or factum from the respondent.

A similar sequence appears in Agha v. Fatima, 2025 ONSC 5675:

[3] During the case management process, the court issued directions raising the concern that the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal and, therefore, that the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process of the court. The court asked the Registrar to issue a notice under r. 2.1. The case management directions, which were provided to the parties with the r. 2.1 notice, asked the appellant to address the following concerns in his r. 2.1 submissions:

a. The Divisional Court does not appear to have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

b. The proposed appellant relies on s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43 (CJA). That provision addresses interlocutory orders. This is an appeal from a final order. 2025 ONSC 5675 (CanLII)

c. Paragraph 19(1)(a.1) of the CJA addresses appeals to the Divisional Court from a final order of a judge of the Family Court made only under a provision of an Act or regulation in Ontario. Kraft J. is not a judge of the Family Court. In addition, the order was made pursuant to an application under the Divorce Act and includes relief only available in the context of a divorce proceeding, such as for the equalization of property.

d. Although the proposed appellant cites s. 110 of the CJA, he does so saying that jurisdiction lies in the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 110. He does not seek a transfer to a different court under that provision. Section 110 does not provide a source of jurisdiction to this court.

In both cases the case-management judge identified a jurisdictional concern during an administrative step and converted that concern into a Rule 2.1 inquiry. This shifts the immediate burden onto the appellant to respond to a notice that the proceeding may be an abuse of process, rather than requiring the respondent to bring and support a formal motion to quash.

The underlying facts of the individual proceedings are not the focus of this note. The procedural point is that Rule 2.1 was used in place of the ordinary motion process for a pure jurisdictional or prematurity issue. When that occurs, the responding party is not required to prepare a notice of motion or factum, and the matter is resolved on the materials already before the case-management judge. Whether that approach is consistent with Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, and Simpson, 2016 ONCA 806, remains a question of the proper scope of Rule 2.1.

By using the case conference as the trigger for a Rule 2.1 notice, the court can reach a final dismissal on jurisdictional grounds through an informal administrative step. The appellant is then required to address, in written submissions, why the proceeding should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. In these examples the case conference functioned as the occasion for initiating that summary process rather than solely as a scheduling event.

Case Management — Superior Court: Scheduling as Adjudication via Rule 2.1

Ian Seo, Toronto · public note

Directory of Records

Ian Seo, Toronto · document index