Danielle Meuleman

The applicants brought a motion for a stay of a Divisional Court order, pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court had dismissed their judicial review of an Animal Care Board decision approving costs for animal care.

The applicants sought the stay to prevent forfeiture of animals due to unpaid accounts.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for stays, combined with principles for leave to appeal from Sault Dock Co. Ltd. The court found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm (as the animals had already been forfeited), and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash rulings by Justice Colvin in an ongoing appeal.

The rulings disallowed the applicant's choice of agent (who was not a licensed paralegal or lawyer) and refused an adjournment.

The applicant also sought to remove Justice Colvin and amend the appeal.

The court dismissed the application for certiorari, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The judge's decision to disqualify the agent was upheld due to the agent's failure to comply with duties and responsibilities, particularly the "trial by ambush" tactic of not providing advance notice.

The refusal to grant an adjournment was also upheld as the applicant should have been prepared to proceed.

The court noted that the substantive appeal had not been heard and could be re-argued before Justice Colvin.

The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.

The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.

It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.

On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.

The appeal was dismissed.