Amar Mohammed

The applicants and respondents were the four directors of a non-share corporation operating a religious seminary.

The corporation faced severe financial difficulties, and the applicants sought to sell its main property to pay off debts.

The respondents refused to consent, resulting in a board deadlock.

The applicants applied for a court order compelling the sale under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Highwood that courts should generally avoid interfering in the internal decision-making of religious organizations, especially where no procedural unfairness is shown and alternative remedies exist.

The appellant sought a motion to review a decision of the motion judge.

The motion judge had heard both the respondent's motion to stay proceedings and the appellant's motion for an extension of time simultaneously.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's discretionary order, as the motion judge had reasonably connected his decision on the respondent's motion to his disposition of the appellant's motion.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.00 all-inclusive.

The respondent brought a motion for recusal against the case management judge, alleging bias and lack of impartiality.

The judge had appointed herself as case management judge for complex, protracted proceedings involving the parties.

The respondent maintained the allegations despite being offered an opportunity to withdraw them, and was directed to bring a formal recusal motion.

The respondent failed to provide cogent evidence of bias.

Applying the high threshold for recusal motions, particularly within the case management context, the court found no actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The recusal motion was dismissed.

The moving party sought extensions of time to appeal three orders from the Superior Court: a contempt order dated October 10, 2017, a costs order dated January 26, 2018, and a sentencing order dated September 21, 2018, which struck the moving party's pleadings and allowed the respondent to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The motion judge dismissed the extensions for the first two orders on the basis of abuse of process, given the substantial delays, lack of satisfactory explanation, and the moving party's pattern of non-compliance with court orders and procedural rules.

However, the motion judge granted an extension for the sentencing order due to its severe procedural consequences, and stayed that order pending appeal.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal or, alternatively, for security for costs.

The appellant, appearing in person, sought an adjournment pending the availability of his previous counsel after serving a suspension from practice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal on multiple grounds: the operative amended notice of appeal was limited to an interlocutory order over which the Court had no jurisdiction; the appellant failed to seek leave to appeal the costs order; and the appellant was out of time to appeal the contempt order and had not sought an extension of time.

The Court also found that the appellant's procedural conduct was abusive and refused the adjournment request.