|
Appeals - Leave to Appeal - General. Kostiuk v. Liu
In Kostiuk v. Liu (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court refused to accept a 'Notice of Appeal' where a 'Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal' was the proper document, even though the irregular form specifically mentions that 'leave to appeal' was being sought.
The court granted the erring self-presenter 15 days to commence the appropriate motion:[8] The Order is an interlocutory order, and, accordingly, leave to appeal must be sought in accordance with s. 19(1) (b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43 and Rules 61.03 and 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Appellant seems aware of this, because her Notice of Appeal states that “The appellant deserves for leave to appeal” (sic). She has, however, filed the wrong court document for a motion for leave to appeal.
[9] The Notice of Appeal must be struck, and Ms. Liu must file a Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal.
[10] Ms. Liu is therefore granted 15 days from today’s date to bring a motion for leave to appeal in accordance with Rules 61.03 and 62.02. The parties should also review the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings, effective June 15, 2023, which is available on the Court’s website at:https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/practice/div-court-pd/ [11] Part E of that Direction deals with motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court and requires that all motions for leave to appeal are heard in writing and are to be filed in Toronto.
[12] Since the April 25, 2024 Order was made “for oral reasons given”, the proposed appellant must obtain the transcript of the Court’s reasons. The filing office can provide her with the website and email address if she needs assistance. . Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636
In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1628 v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1636 (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal made this observation regarding refusal to grant leave to appeal:[113] The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in Eggiman, but as is well known, the refusal to grant leave “should not be taken to indicate agreement with the judgment sought to be appealed[] from”: Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 22, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 88.
|
