In Appleyard v. Zealand (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considered the CJA 134(1) 'appeal powers' jurisdiction of the court to set a case management timetable for the management of an appeal:
[52] Nor do I see any error in the motion judge’s exercise of his discretion in his case management of the proceedings to avoid the continuing abuse of the court’s processes due to Ms. Appleyard’s vexatious conduct. The excessive and unnecessary delay in these proceedings led to this court’s January 4, 2019 direction, under s. 134(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, that a timetable for the timely administration of this estate be established. The motion judge made his order in accordance with that direction.
[53] Setting a timetable is entirely within a case management judge’s discretion: Teitler v. Dale, 2021 ONCA 577, at para. 24. I see no error in the exercise of that discretion. His timetable achieved the court-ordered objective of bringing to an end the years of unnecessary and expensive litigation ongoing since Mr. Appleyard’s death in 2013. It equitably balanced the parties’ respective interests, including those of the beneficiaries whose inheritance has been eroded as a result of Ms. Appleyard’s vexatious conduct of these proceedings.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
