Background
Three individuals—Ijeoma Chijindu, Joy Chijindu, and Christian Chukwuedozie Chijindu—commenced an action against the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), a Crown agency responsible for guardianship and trusteeship matters in Ontario. A case conference judge of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action as a nullity without prejudice to the appellants bringing a new action against the Crown (His Majesty the King in right of Ontario). The appellants appealed, arguing the case conference judge lacked jurisdiction to make such an order.
The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario on June 22, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. The court agreed that the action against the PGT was a nullity for three independent reasons. First, the appellants did not plead bad faith against the PGT; without such a pleading, the PGT is immune from liability. Second, the action should have been brought against Ontario itself, not against the PGT. Third, the appellants failed to provide the mandatory 60-day statutory notice required before commencing such proceedings.
The appellants argued that the case conference judge had determined the merits of the action by finding it was a nullity, thereby prejudicing any subsequent action against Ontario. The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, holding that a dismissal as a nullity is a procedural ruling that does not adjudicate the merits and therefore does not prejudice the new action already commenced by the appellants against Ontario. The case conference judge possessed jurisdiction to make the order.
Key Takeaways
- Actions against the Public Guardian and Trustee require an explicit pleading of bad faith; absent such a pleading, the PGT enjoys immunity from liability.
- When suing Crown agencies or agents, the proper defendant must be carefully identified; the Crown itself (Ontario) was the appropriate party, not the PGT.
- Statutory notice requirements are mandatory; failure to provide the required 60-day notice is a fatal defect that renders an action a nullity.
- A dismissal as a nullity is a procedural ruling that does not determine the merits and does not bar a properly formulated subsequent action.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the immunity framework protecting Crown agents like the Public Guardian and Trustee, establishing that immunity applies unless bad faith is explicitly pleaded. The ruling reinforces the importance of statutory notice requirements as jurisdictional prerequisites and confirms that procedural defects can be cured by commencing a new action against the correct defendant with proper notice.
For litigants dealing with Crown entities in Ontario, the decision underscores the need for careful attention to pleadings, proper party identification, and statutory procedural requirements before initiating proceedings. The court’s holding that a nullity dismissal does not adjudicate merits provides important guidance: a procedurally defective action can be reformed and refiled without the parties being bound by adverse findings from the first dismissal.