DAILY
CASE-EXTRACTS
Stay Current With all
Ontario and Canada
Appeal Court Dicta
|
|
Judges - Case Management. Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference
In Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court makes the obvious point that case management orders are court orders that should be obeyed as any other court order:[18] Pursuant to the direction of D.L. Corbett J., CP was required to perfect its application by October 22, 2021. It failed to do so. As this court found in Isaac v. Law Society of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 3577, at para. 26, case management orders and directions are not suggestions, but are orders to be respected and followed. Not only did CP fail to perfect its application for judicial review within the timeline ordered by D.L. Corbett J., at no time did it request an extension of time or take any steps to perfect its application. . Hutton v. Sayat
In Hutton v. Sayat (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal states the standard of review for case management judges:[5] It is by now well established that a decision made by a case management judge to stay proceedings is interlocutory and discretionary in nature, and attracts a high degree of deference. In the absence of an obvious, serious error of law or legal principle, an appellate court will not interfere unless it can be demonstrated that the decision rests on a misapprehension of the evidence that rises to the level of a palpable and overriding error. This is a high standard, and it is very rarely met: see Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, [2017] 1 F.C.R. 331 at paras. 79, 83-84; Turmel v. R., 2016 FCA 9, 481 N.R. 139 at paras. 9-12; Contrevenant no. 10 v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 42, 488 N.R. 226 at para. 6.
|
