Simon looking earnest in Preveza, Greece

SimonShields@isp.com

Online Lawyer (Ontario)

Legal Guides
tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law) / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada)

home / about / Simon's Favorite Charity / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Need Help With Any
of these Legal Resources?



THE LATEST WORD
... what's this?

-------------- Appeals Jurisdiction

. Wright v. Strauss
In Wright v. Strauss (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal


-------------- Appeal
. Bernard Property Maintenance v. Taylor
In Bernard Property Maintenance v. Taylor (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal ...


------------------
. Ting (Re)

In Ting (Re) (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal set out the test for staying it's own judgment pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada:
[15] The test for granting a stay pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is well-established. The moving party must demonstrate that: (i) there is a serious issue to be adjudicated on its proposed appeal, including that the appeal raises an issue of public or national importance; (ii) it will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and (iii) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. These three components are interrelated in that the overriding question is whether the moving party has shown that it is in the interests of justice that the court grant a stay: Iroquois Falls Power Corporation v. Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation, 2016 ONCA 616 (CanLII), at paras. 14 and 15; Livent Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 2016 ONCA 395 (CanLII), 131 O.R. (3d) 784, at para. 7.


-------------------
. Lee v. Lalu Canada Inc

In Lee v. Lalu Canada Inc (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal states once again on the distinction between final and interlocutory orders:
[3] In order for an order to be a final order for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction that order “must deal with the substantive merits as opposed to mere procedural rights, no matter how important the procedural rights may be”, see Sun Life Assurance Co. v. York Ridge Developments Ltd. (1998), 1998 CanLII 4519 (ON CA), 116 O.A.C. 103 at para. 13.

----------------

--------------

In Hamill Re (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal articulated the criteria for the hearing of an appeal despite the death of the appellant:
[5] It is well-settled that, as a general rule, an appeal abates with the death of the appellant. Despite this general rule, an appellate court retains jurisdiction to proceed to hear the appeal if the court considers it in the interests of justice to do so. It is a discretion which should be sparingly exercised: R. v. Smith, 2004 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 385, at paras. 11 and 20.

[6] To determine whether there are special circumstances that make it in the interests of justice to proceed to hear and determine an appeal despite the death of an appellant, an appellate court must consider all the circumstances. Among, but not dispositive of the factors relevant for consideration are these:

i. the presence of a proper adversarial context;

ii. the strength of the grounds of appeal;

iii. the existence of special circumstances that transcend the death of the individual appellant, such as a legal issue of general public importance, a systemic issue related to the administration of justice or collateral consequences to the deceased’s family, other interested persons or the public;

iv. the expenditure of limited judicial resources; and

v. the likelihood that continuing the appeal would go beyond the judicial function of resolving concrete disputes and involve the court in freestanding legislative-type pronouncements more appropriately the role of the legislative branch.

See Smith, at para. 15.

------------------

In Lafontaine v. Grant (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal enumerates the four criteria for extending time to appeal:
[2] The test applicable on a motion to extend the time to appeal is set out in Reid v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 779 (CanLII), at para. 14. The governing principle is whether the “justice of the case” requires that an extension be given. To that end, courts consider four factors, as applied to the circumstances of the case, together with the overall interests of justice.

------------

[3] In the present case, there is no dispute that Mr. LaFontaine formed the intention to seek leave to appeal within the prescribed period of time and has a reasonable explanation for his delay. Prejudice is not a factor. The factor in contention is the merits of Mr. LaFontaine’s motion for leave to appeal.


In R. v. M.C. (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal .... [para 61-63] ... appeals


-----------------
In Donovan v. Sherman Estate (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal considered granting a stay of it's order pending a party filing a motion for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada:
[8] The test on a motion for a stay of an order of this court pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, was set out by Strathy C.J.O. in Livent Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 2016 ONCA 395 (CanLII), 131 O.R. (3d) 784 (in Chambers), at paras. 4-5. The factors to be considered are: (1) whether there is a serious question to be determined; (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and (3) whether the balance of convenience favours a stay. The factors are not to be treated as watertight compartments and the strength of one factor may compensate for weaknesses of another. The overarching consideration is whether the interests of justice call for a stay. See also BTR Global Opportunity Trading Limited v. RBC Dexia Investor Services Trust, 2011 ONCA 620 (CanLII), 283 O.A.C. 321 (in Chambers), at para. 16.


-------------------

In V Hazelton Limited v. Perfect Smile Dental Inc. (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal held that it did have jurisdiction to here an appeal case where jurisdiction over multiple issues was split:
(i) Jurisdiction of this Court

[20] Perfect Smile raised a threshold issue about this court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It submitted that where a judge grants or refuses a writ of possession over leased premises, any appeal lies to the Divisional Court, pursuant to s. 78 (1) of the CTA, which provides:
78. (1) An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from the order of the judge granting or refusing a writ of possession.
[21] During oral argument this jurisdictional objection was dismissed with reasons to follow. It may be dealt with summarily.

[22] The application judge refused an order for delivery of vacant possession, which is arguably captured by this section. However, he also refused declaratory relief and declined to order that an arbitrator be appointed. These aspects of the decision are beyond the ambit of s. 78.

[23] Pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, this court retains the discretion to combine and hear all the issues raised on this appeal. I would exercise that discretion, given the interconnected nature of the issues and the resultant risk of inconsistent judgments.


---------------

Appeals - Credibility - Standard of Review

R v J.E. (Ont CA, 2018)

Appeals - Appeal of Order Not Reasons

Brunning v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2018)

Appeals - Grounds - Failure to Make Findings of Credibility

Appeal - Misapprehension of Evidence

Appeals - Misapprehension of Evidence

Appeals - Divisional Court - Monetary Limit

Appeals - New Issues on Appeal

Appeals - Misapprehension of Evidence

Appeals - Stay Pending Appeal

Appeals - Practice - Order Below Must be Taken Out

Appeals - Practice - Appeal is of Order, not Reasons

Appeals - Grounds - Objections at Trial

Appeals - Extending Timeline to Commence

Appeals - Final versus Interlocutory Orders

Appeals - Conflict in Statutory Appeal Route

Appeals - Dismissal for Delay



Appeals - Jury Finding - Set Aside

Appeals - New Issues

Appeals - Final versus Interlocutory Orders

Appeals - Standard of Review



Appeals - Formal Orders - When Necessary on Motions

Appeals - Re-Opening

Appeals - Standard of Review - Fact-findings

Appeals - New Legal Arguments on Appeal

Appeals - Standard of Review - Contractual Interpretation - Standard Form Contracts

Appeals - Fact-findings

Appeals - Stay Pending

Appeals - Final or Interlocutory Orders

Appeals - Stay Pending Appeal

Appeals - Grounds - Inadequate Reasons

Appeals - Fresh Evidence

Appeals - Grounds - Fact-finding Error

Appeals - Misapprehension of Evidence

Appeals - Automatic Stay - Lifting

Appeals - Grounds - Inadequate Reasons



Appeals - Stay Pending

Appeals - Security for Costs - Where Appeal is Frivolous and Vexatious

Appeals - Leave to Appeal - Extension of Time

Appeals - Stay Pending Appeal

Appeals - Extension of Time to Commence

Appeals - Grounds - Misapprehension of Evidence

Appeals - Interlocutory v Final Orders

Appeals - Are From Order not from Reasons

Appeals - Where Orders Breached

Appeals - Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada - Stay Pending

Appeals - Fresh Evidence

Appeals - Raising Fresh Legal Issues in Appeal

Appeals - Standard of Review - Dunsmuir

Appeals - Final versus Interlocutory - Jurisdiction Where Appeal Combines Both

Appeals - Stay Pending

Appeals - Re-opening

Appeal - Natural Justice

Appeals - Standard of Review - Negligence

Appeals - Contracts - Standard of Review


Appeals - Stay
Thunder Bay (City) v. Canadian National Railway Company (Ont CA, 2018)



Appeals - Written Hearing Below

THMR Development Inc. v. 1440254 Ontario Ltd. (Ont CA, 2018)



------------------ Appeals

- an extensive consideration of case law bearing on the issue of whether a reference in statutes to 'decisions' and their appealability, applied to final decisions or included interlocutory [it didn't]: Sazant v. R.M. and C.I.C.B., 2010 ONSC 4273 (CanLII)

-------------------------- Appeals

Setia v. Appleby College, 2013 ONCA 753 (CanLII)

- Quashing an Appeal: [40] Relying on this court’s decision in Schmidt v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1995), 1995 CanLII 3502 (ON CA), 24 O.R. (3d) 1, the Society argues that the threshold for the granting of an order quashing an appeal is high and that the demonstration of even a minimal level of merit to an appeal will defeat a motion to quash where it is alleged that the proposed appeal lacks merit. I agree.

Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2019