3 total
Relief from election finance penalties denied for failure to file financial statement.
The applicant, an unsuccessful municipal election candidate, sought relief from the statutory penalties imposed under s. 80(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 for failing to file a required campaign financial statement by the prescribed deadline.
The applicant relied on s. 92(6) of the Act and alternatively s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act to request relief from forfeiture and ineligibility consequences.
The court held that s. 92(6) applies only in the context of prosecutions for specific offences under s. 92(5) and that the “presiding judge” referenced in that provision refers to a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, not the Superior Court.
The court further found that equitable relief under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act was not warranted because the applicant’s failure to file reflected indifference rather than inadvertence or good faith.
The application was dismissed.
Appeal from judgment enforcing a mortgage guarantee dismissed.
The appellant appealed a judgment enforcing a mortgage guarantee.
The appellant argued there was an implicit understanding that he would not be liable under the guarantee until the full mortgage amount was advanced, and that the respondent's failure to pursue $50,000 in a Crown forfeiture proceeding precluded the claim.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no support for the implicit understanding in the mortgage or commitment letter, and holding that the failure to pursue the funds in the forfeiture proceeding did not preclude the claim against the guarantor.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Appeal allowed and dismissal for delay set aside where motion judge ignored uncontradicted affidavit explaining delay.
The self-represented appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing the action for delay.
The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by giving no credence to the appellant's un-cross-examined affidavit explaining the delay.
Noting that the respondents had also delayed in taking steps and that there was no evidence of actual prejudice, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and imposed a strict timetable for the appellant to advance the litigation.
