2 total
Motion to set aside order granting public interest group leave to intervene in judicial review granted.
The respondent doctor brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order granting Canadian Women in Medicine (CWIM) leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review.
The underlying judicial review concerned a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action on a complaint alleging discriminatory hiring practices.
The Divisional Court majority granted the motion and set aside the intervention order, finding that the motion judge failed to consider whether CWIM's legal position was distinct from the applicant's and failed to recognize that the underlying matter was primarily a private administrative dispute.
A dissenting judge would have dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.
Action dismissed as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01; request for vexatious litigant declaration denied.
The defendants requisitioned the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff, a lawyer, had commenced multiple proceedings attempting to re-litigate issues from a prior action where he was removed as counsel of record.
The court found the statement of claim to be an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process, dismissing the action.
However, the court declined the defendants' request for declaratory relief to bar the plaintiff from future litigation, noting such an order requires a formal application under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.
No costs were awarded.
