David A. Jarvis

The moving party brought a motion before the Divisional Court to appeal a Superior Court judge's refusal to grant leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court distinguished previous case law where leave was refused by a Divisional Court judge, noting that section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act did not apply to a Superior Court judge's refusal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, a tax consultant, sued the defendant for a contingency fee based on potential tax savings.

The defendant had retained other counsel to appeal a tax decision, and the plaintiff's claim was contingent on the success of that appeal.

The plaintiff sought a stay of its own action because the tax appeal was delayed and it could not proceed to trial without the contingent liability being established.

The court granted the stay, noting the plaintiff had no status to move the tax appeal forward and ordering the defendant to provide quarterly reports on the appeal's status.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendant, who had purchased their business and assets.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court noted the plaintiffs' delay and petulant interference in the defendant's affairs.

The motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale.