Civil Litigation - Orders - Interpretation. Wellman v. Telus Communication Company
In Wellman v. Telus Communication Company (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court issued an unusual order. The parties disagreed about the interpretation of a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) order with respect to costs, so - after they moved at trial level to resolve it (leading to the present appeal) - the Divisional court ordered (it wasn't simply a suggestion) that they make an application to the SCC to resolve the issue. It's unusual that parties could be ordered to make what is normally highly-deferred-to tactical decision:
 As a result, this court orders that the parties jointly apply to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to Rule 81 and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156. The parties are to apply for clarification of the terms of the costs order issued by the Supreme Court, and an extension of time if necessary. The decision of Morgan J. is to be included in the application. Although directed as a joint application, the relief sought by each party may differ. This application must be made within 45 days.. Rak v. Ontario College of Pharmacists
In Rak v. Ontario College of Pharmacists (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court considered the interpretation of the wording of a tribunal order:
 The appellant submits that the order of the Discipline Committee is akin to a court order and therefore should be interpreted much like the interpretation of a statute: Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 688, at para. 29. The College relies on Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Ontario Egg Producers, 2011 ONSC 3650, at para. 34, aff’d, 2012 ONCA 337, which similarly found that the principles that apply to contract and legislative interpretation also apply to court orders, with necessary modifications.