|
Appeals - Practice (2). Libfeld v. Libfeld
In Libfeld v. Libfeld (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a motion to quash an appeal, this on appeal route final-v-interlocutory grounds.
The court illustrates another practical appeal practice, here where an appeal route is uncertain: a 'precautionary appeal':[54] For the above reasons, I find that the Raki Order is interlocutory and should be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave. I am also persuaded that the Raki Order was made under the OBCA and would thus in any event be appealable to the Divisional Court under s. 255 of the OBCA.
[55] As a result, the motions to quash are granted.
[56] In conjunction with their attempts to appeal to this court, both Mark and Corey commenced “precautionary” appeals to the Divisional Court. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider whether the appeal should be transferred to the Divisional Court. . Chad v. Canada
In Chad v. Canada (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an income tax appeal, here brought against a Tax Court confirmation of a Minister’s reassessment - and this wrt a finding "that the appellant undertook that activity in pursuit of loss, not profit", and thus could not claim a loss deduction.
Here the court seems at least sensitive to issues included in the factum, but not argued orally:[9] I turn now to address the appellant’s submissions and my reasons for rejecting them. While I considered all the arguments in the appellant’s memorandum of fact and law, I find those not addressed at the hearing of the appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, in these reasons I focus on the submissions made at the hearing. . Park et al v. Anelli
In Park et al v. Anelli (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a landlord's RTA s.210 appeal, here brought against an LTB order that "found they collected and retained money in contravention of the Residential Tenancies Act".
Here the court illustrates the frequent practice of the appeal courts to disregard a party's written factum argument when they are not relied on in oral argument:[17] The landlords addressed other issues in their factum that they did not raise in their oral submissions. They allege, for example, that the Board did not address material documentary evidence. I have already addressed the landlords’ primary contention, which is that the Board did not expressly discuss the impact of the settlement on the $4900 payment. Beyond that, the Board is not required to expressly address every piece of evidence put before it. Its failure to do so is not an error of law. Similarly, to the extent the landlords disagree with the Board’s weighing of or assessment of the evidence, these are factual issues that do not raise errors of law.
[18] In their written material, the landlords also counter various arguments they say the tenant raised at the Board hearing. The Board did not rely on those arguments and they therefore are not relevant and need not be addressed on appeal.
|
