



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Kavuru v. Public Guardian and Trustee, 2016 ONCA
    758

DATE: 20161014

DOCKET: C61517

Simmons, LaForme and Pardu JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Kodanda Kavuru

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

Ontario
    Public Guardian and Trustee

and
    Attorney General (Ontario)

Defendants/Respondents

Kodanda Kavuru, in person

Eunice Machado, for the respondents

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the order of Justice F.L. Myers of the
    Superior Court of Justice, dated December 9, 2015.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]

This appeal
was dealt with in writing by
    direction of the list judge.

[2]

The appellant appeals from an order dated
    December 9, 2015 dismissing his action under rule 2.1 of the
Rules
    of Civil Procedure
, O. Reg. 194.

[3]

The motion judge determined that the Divisional
    Court is not a suable entity and that a claim against the Province for an
    allegedly wrong decision of that court is frivolous and vexatious. He also held
    that there was no merit in the appellants action against the Public Guardian
    and Trustee for its conduct in settling prior actions on the appellants behalf
    as the settlements were approved by the Divisional Court. In addition, he found
    that the appellant has no cause of action against the Public Guardian and
    Trustee for solicitors negligence because it did not act in the capacity of
    the appellants solicitor. Similarly, he concluded that the Public Guardian and
    Trustees counsel owed its duties to the Public Guardian and Trustee and not to
    the appellant.

[4]

We see no error in the motion judges conclusion
    that the appellants claim was devoid of merit or in his reliance on the
    history of the prior proceedings to address the rule 2.1 issue.

[5]

The prior proceedings formed the subject matter
    of the appellants action and were incorporated by reference into his statement
    of claim.

[6]

Viewed in the context of the prior proceedings,
    the motion judges findings concerning the merits of the appellants action are
    obvious on their face and support the dismissal of the claim under rule 2.1.

[7]

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Janet
    Simmons J.A.

"H.S.
    LaForme J.A.

"G.
    Pardu J.A."


