Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Judges - Control of Process

. Rebello v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

In Rebello v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an earlier dismissal "of her lawsuit alleging that the Ontario Provincial Police breached common law and statutory duties they owed to her by failing to meaningfully investigate complaints".

Here the court considers it's 'control of process' jurisdiction in the context of an appeal involving an adjournment denial:

[10] A judge has broad discretion to manage proceedings as appropriate in any specific case. This includes the discretion to determine the mode of hearing. As the Superior Court’s Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction states, “the final determination of how an event will proceed will remain subject to the discretion of the Court”. In his reasons, the motion judge explained that he determined that an in-person hearing was appropriate based on the issues raised in the summary judgment motion, the length of the hearing, the evidentiary record, the complexity of the legal issues, and difficulties he had in hearing and communicating with the appellant in a previous hearing which she had attended with audio-only Zoom.

[11] Contrary to the appellant’s submissions, she had no right to insist on a virtual hearing. The appellant had an opportunity to make submissions on the mode of hearing. The motion judge ordered an in-person hearing based on relevant considerations. His decision was not unfair to the appellant, in particular in the absence of any credible evidence that she was unable to attend in person.