Debra M. McAllister

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The appellant, Ontario, appealed a case management judge's order that directed multiple motions, including motions to strike, to proceed concurrently with the respondents' motion for leave to pursue a bad faith claim against the Crown.

Ontario argued that section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 imposes an automatic stay on the entire proceeding until leave is granted.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the statutory stay applies to all claims in the proceeding, not just those against the Crown, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot override this statutory mandate.

The appeal was granted, and all motions other than the leave motion were stayed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated May 9, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the responding parties to pay $5,000 in costs to the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that jurisdiction over the proposed appeal lies with the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicants initiated a proceeding by application seeking declarations and substantial damages related to an anaerobic digester, and subsequently moved to add a party and for injunctive relief to prevent the digester's reactivation.

The court found the application procedurally inappropriate and outside its jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly due to the presence of material facts in dispute and the complex nature of the claims (nuisance and negligence).

Consequently, the court converted the application into an action, directing the applicants to file a Statement of Claim, and denied the immediate injunctive relief on the basis that it was not available in an improperly commenced application.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that denied their claim for over $1.2 million in costs following a lengthy proceeding.

The underlying application concerned a nuisance claim against a greenhouse and anaerobic digester operated by a court-appointed receiver.

The Board had found that both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct and declined to award costs to either side.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Board's discretionary costs decision.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding her entitlement to Indian status, alleging the Registrar unconstitutionally presumed her unknown paternal grandfather was not an Indian.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Registrar simply applied the Indian Act and did not employ the alleged presumption.

The Court noted the appellant could still challenge the constitutionality of the Indian Act and the Registrar's decision in separate proceedings.

The moving party brought a motion to abridge time and expedite the hearing of its appeal.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that while the Court could accommodate the parties and Attorneys General, it could not abridge the time granted under Rule 18(2) for unknown potential interveners to apply for intervener status.

The Court emphasized its unwillingness to deny potential litigants their right to seek intervener status in an important matter.

The appellant, born abroad to a Canadian mother and an American father before 1977, applied for Canadian citizenship.

Under the Citizenship Act, children of Canadian fathers were granted citizenship upon application, while children of Canadian mothers were required to undergo a security check and swear an oath.

The appellant's application was rejected due to outstanding criminal charges discovered during the security check.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the differential treatment based on the gender of the Canadian parent violated section 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1.

The Court found that applying the Charter to the appellant's application was not an impermissible retrospective application, as it addressed his ongoing status at the time of his application.