In Rosen v. Reed (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a motion for a (non-automatic) stay, here in an RTA context where the appellant had lost the appeal (thus the auto-stay was lifted) but was seeking a time extension for a CJA s.21(5) panel review (set aside) of that order.
Here the court comments on a self-presenter relying on court staff advice:
[42] Court staff are not supposed to provide legal advice: they are not trained lawyers, and it is not the function of the court to give legal advice in any event. On the other hand, court staff do try to help litigants navigate the court process, particularly with self-represented litigants. Sometimes court staff get it wrong: they are not trained lawyers, and some process issues are quite complicated. When there is a mistake, the court will strive to correct the error and to limit any resulting prejudice (for example, Ledsham v. Air Canada Pilots Association, 2022 ONSC 1877 (Div. Ct.)), as has been done in this case: the highly expedited and case managed process for this motion resulted in the court deciding the stay issue before the scheduled eviction was carried to be carried out, albeit with no time to spare.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
