|
Appeals - Final Appeals from Associate Judges (Masters). De Almeida v. Peric
In De Almeida v. Peric (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court noted the appeal route for final orders of an Associate Judge of the Divisional Court:[3] The appellant submits that Associate Justice Robinson erred in principle and made palpable and overriding errors in his application of the factors set out in Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., (2001), 11 C.P.C. (5th) 80, at para. 41 (Ont. S.C.J.), rev’d on other grounds, (2002), 48 C.P.C. (5th) 93 (Ont. Div. Ct.).
[4] In applying the factors set out in Reid, Associate Justice Robinson determined that the appellant had not led evidence that established that the plaintiff had intended to set the action down for trial within the time limit, but had failed to do so through inadvertence. He also found the appellant did not establish that the respondents would not suffer significant prejudice because of the delay. He found there was actual prejudice to the respondents given the death of a law clerk, whom he found to be a material witness, the death of one of the respondents, and the faded memory of the remaining elderly respondent.
Jurisdiction and standard of review
[5] The appellant appeals this final order of an Associate Justice of the Divisional Court under s. 19(1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
[6] The parties agree that Associate Justice Robinson’s decision is a discretionary one, entitled to deference on appeal. An appellate court may intervene if the Associate Justice made a palpable and overriding error, proceeded on an erroneous legal principle, or gave no or insufficient weight to relevant factors: H.B. Fuller Company v. Rogers (Rogers Law Office), 2015 ONCA 173, 330 O.A.C. 378, at para. 19.
|
