|
Civil Litigation Cases - Motions - Confirmation of Motion. Amaro v. The Chiefs of Ontario
In Amaro v. The Chiefs of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought by the applicant against the refusal of the Chiefs of Ontario ('COO'), "a private voluntary association of First Nations Chiefs in Ontario", which declined "to support his cause and intervene with political advocacy to address the injustice illustrated by his personal experience".
Here the court addressed an issue regarding 'confirmation of motion' [R37.10.1 - 'Confirmation of Motion']:[29] The confirmation process outlined in rule 37.10.1(1) of the Rules exists primarily for the court’s benefit. It is intended to be the result of a meaningful process where counsel and/or counsel and the self-represented party confer and turn their minds to what remains in issue since the motion or application was first filed. It generally serves as the starting place in the court’s review and is used to inform itself on what matters remain in issue and the materials to review. A thoughtfully completed motion confirmation form benefits the parties and the court in the preparation for an efficient and effective hearing. It is meant to ensure that the appropriate amount of time is made available to the parties in argument and that the court presiding at the motion knows the issues to be addressed and the materials to be reviewed in advance: Sheikh v. Ali, 2024 ONSC 3559 at paras. 7-9.
[30] I had case managed the matter and was seized of this motion over the preceding three months in preparation for this hearing date. The court was under no confusion as to the issues on the motions. The applicant also demonstrated he was able to quickly remedy the omission with an amended confirmation form. The materials for all motions to be heard were uploaded and available for the court’s review on Case Center and were, in fact, so reviewed.
[31] I am also satisfied there was no “fraud” by the respondent as asserted by the applicant. While it is best practice for a party to list all those materials which will be heard on a motion and not their own, I accept that there was no intention by the respondent to mislead the court with this omission. As I shall explain further in these reasons, I agree that some of the disclosure issues that were the subject of the applicant’s motions were moot by the time of the hearing. For its part, the court was not precise in its direction of how the applicant’s motions would be addressed at the hearing. The respondent had also registered its concern early in this proceeding that the volume of the applicant’s submissions and communications risked causing confusion, among other issues. The December 2025 motion was unexpected in light of the court’s previous direction. There is no fraud or other intentional misconduct by the respondent in the preparation of this confirmation form. No prejudice arose from the irregularity. I was satisfied that the case managed and timetabled R21 motion, for which the applicant was long on notice, could be heard on its merits.
[32] The applicant made submissions on his motions at this hearing. However, he did not make any oral submissions in response to the Rule 21 motion, although invited to do so. His oral argument on his motions indirectly informs his position on the Rule 21 motion and is consistent with his written materials that I have carefully reviewed. I find the applicant had ample notice of this motion and reasonable opportunity to put his position forward for the court’s consideration.
|
