|
Civil Litigation Dicta - Orders - Mandatory Compliance. Rosen v. Reed
In Rosen v. Reed (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a motion for a (non-automatic) stay, here in an RTA context where the appellant had lost the appeal (thus the auto-stay was lifted) but was seeking a time extension for a CJA s.21(5) panel review (set aside) of that order.
Here the court comments on the mandatory requirement to comply with court orders:[8] Mr Rosen argues that he was denied procedural fairness because (a) he requested an extension in the deadline for his materials prospectively, but his request was not denied until after the deadline had expired, thus denying him the ability to meet the deadline if his request was denied; (b) he was misdirected by court staff to the Court of Appeal for appellate review of the order of Shore J.; and (c) he was entitled to more support and guidance from the court once he became self-represented as of July 9, 2024.
[9] These arguments do not avail Mr Rosen.
[10] Court orders are mandatory requirements, not “suggestions” or topics for further discussion. Parties are expected to raise all their issues respecting scheduling and then to abide by the schedule established by the court.
....
[17] There was no unfairness in Mr Rosen’s extension request not being disposed of until after his deadline had expired. Mr Rosen’s argument to the contrary rests on an erroneous presumption: that he was relieved of the court-ordered deadline because he wrote in asking for an extension.
[18] Court orders are binding and effective when they are made. They are not suspended because a party brings an appeal, a review motion, seeks reconsideration, or otherwise challenges the order, unless there is either (a) a statutory stay, or (b) the court grants an order for a stay. There was no stay applicable to the court directed scheduling orders.
|
