|
Courts - Inherent and Plenary Powers (2). His Majesty the King in right of Ontario v. Dell
In His Majesty the King in right of Ontario v. Dell (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered whether the court could look to it's 'inherent jurisdiction' to justify orders which were issued prior to a statutory 'leave to sue' requirement (it couldn't):(2) Inherent Jurisdiction
[55] All agree that the scope of inherent jurisdiction does not extend to making orders that contravene a statute. The court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction even in respect of matters that are regulated by statute, “so long as the court can do so without contravening any statutory provision”: R. v. Caron, 2011 SCC 5, at para. 32 (emphasis in Caron); Stephen Francis Podgurski (Re), 2020 ONSC 2552, at para. 69.
[56] It is therefore unnecessary to address this issue. The Superior Court’s inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to contravene the automatic stay in s. 17 of the Act. . Turmel v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Turmel v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered (and dismissed) an appeal from a frivolous litigant declaration order [under s.40 FCA], here with supplementary terms regarding outstanding cost orders and "aiding or abetting others to initiate proceedings before that Court". In this quote the court endorses for this purpose a reliance on the 'plenary jurisdiction' of the statutory (not s.96 constitutional) Federal Court of Appeal:[12] Respecting the additional measures imposed on the appellant, the Application Judge correctly pointed out that the Federal Court has “plenary jurisdiction to impose additional requirements as may be necessary to prevent abuses of process” and that some litigants may require different measures and restrictions, including safeguards to “discourage them from finding other ways to continue their vexatious conduct” (Decision at paras. 49–50).
|
