|
Administrative - Interim OrdersIn civil litigation an 'interim' and an 'interlocutory' order are different in that an interim order applies until the next party appearance, while an interlocutory order tends to be one that applies procedurally through the balance of the case. In administrative law the terms tend to be applied interchangeably (at least as used in the SPPA 16.1).
. Bagherian v. Aviva Insurance Company
In Bagherian v. Aviva Insurance Company (Div Ct, 2022) the Divisional Court made the useful point that res judicata only applied to final orders, not interim orders:[17] Second, there is no merit to the argument raised in the appellant’s factum that the Tribunal lacked authority to make this order because of the doctrine of res judicata. The decision of Vice Chair White in 2018 that allowed his application to proceed was an interim decision, not a final determination of the issues. Moreover, there had been a significant change of circumstances since her decision. . Bagherian v. Aviva Insurance Company
In Bagherian v. Aviva Insurance Company (Div Ct, 2022) the Divisional Court held that a tribunal's power to make interim orders [SPPA 16.1] allowed orders requiring the applicant to sign consent forms for the purpose of SABS medical examinations, even though they required loss of privacy:[18] Finally, the appellant takes issue with the authority of Vice Chair Hunter to order that he not dispute the form of the consent and that he be cooperative. Section 16.1 of the SPPA permits a tribunal to make interim orders, and the conditions imposed by Vice Chair Hunter were reasonable in the circumstances of this case. While the appellant asserts that he has rights under various statutes regulating privacy that led him to question the proposed consent forms, Vice Chair Hunter had the authority to require that the appellant cooperate by signing a consent form for the IE (see Coll v. Roberston, 2020 ONSC 383 at para. 16).
|
