Derek A. Danielson

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim order that denied his request to file additional evidence on a motion that had already been argued and was under reserve.

The responding party requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal was doomed to fail because the underlying motion had not yet been decided, making the appeal premature.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring her to pay table amount child support, arguing the judge erred by failing to apply the undue hardship test under section 10(1) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly identified the legal test but was unable to apply it due to the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of her income and means.

The court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish undue hardship.

The appellant, owner of a boarding house where a fatal fire occurred, was charged with causing a fire by violating a municipal fire prevention by-law under s. 392(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought to rely on the deeming provision in s. 392(2) to establish causation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 392(2), which deems a person to have wilfully caused a fire if they fail to comply with fire-safety laws, applies only to charges of wilfully causing a fire under s. 392(1)(a).

As the appellant was charged under s. 392(1)(b), the deeming provision did not apply, and the acquittal was restored.