|
Forms - RCP - Irregular - Allowed. 146 Osgoode Street Holdings v. Unknown
In 146 Osgoode Street Holdings v. Unknown (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court allowed an irregular RCP form, here what was effectively a motion to stay an order dismissing an appeal of an eviction order. The court dealt with the motion as a stay matter, as though it was regular:[15] On February 27, 2023, the day before the stay of the LTB’s eviction order was to be lifted pursuant to the order of the motion judge, the tenant provided the court with an “Urgent Notice of Motion: Motion to stay the Decision for Eviction and to Obtain an Extension of Time.” The tenant was directed by the court to serve her notice of motion on the landlord.
....
[23] I address briefly the tenant’s submission that the motion judge did not have her materials at the outset of the motion, that the hearing was procedurally unfair, and that the motion judge was biased against her. The tenant’s materials were not uploaded to CaseLines prior to the hearing. At the hearing, counsel for the landlord assisted the tenant by uploading to CaseLines the materials he had received from the tenant. It is clear that the motion judge took the opportunity to listen to the arguments made by the parties and to consider all of the materials that were before him. He provided the parties with a comprehensive decision, outlining his decision and the reasons for his decision. The presumption of judicial impartiality and that judges will honour their oaths of office has not been displaced. The tenant has not presented any evidence – let alone any cogent evidence – in support of her allegation of bias.
|
