The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a status hearing endorsement permitting the action to proceed on a timetable despite a 1.5‑year delay.
The moving party argued that the status hearing judge erred by proceeding without sworn affidavit evidence and by exercising discretion contrary to applicable case law.
The court reviewed the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that status hearings may properly proceed on oral submissions and do not necessarily require sworn evidence.
The court found no conflicting authority, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the earlier discretionary decision, and no issue of broader public importance.
Leave to appeal was therefore refused.
