Ex parte

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim arising from a slip and fall.

The delay in service was caused by the plaintiff failing to keep her lawyers informed of her contact information, rather than difficulty in serving the defendants.

The court adjourned the motion and directed that the defendants be served with the notice of motion, as it was desirable and preferable for them to be heard on the issue of prejudice.

The plaintiffs, owners of twelve residential homes, leased their properties to the defendant based on his fraudulent representation that he would occupy them as single-family residences.

Instead, the defendant converted the homes into illegal rooming houses and rented them to numerous occupants.

The plaintiffs sought an ex parte injunction to evict the occupants.

The court held that while the Landlord and Tenant Board generally has exclusive jurisdiction over residential evictions, the Superior Court has jurisdiction under section 440 of the Municipal Act to grant an injunction to a taxpayer to restrain the contravention of municipal zoning by-laws.

The court ordered the occupants and the defendant to comply with all municipal notices and zoning by-laws requiring the properties to be returned to single-family residences.

The Crown brought an ex parte motion for certiorari and mandamus to compel a reviewing justice to consider a search warrant application on its merits.

The reviewing justice had rejected the warrant on its face because it listed a police locker as the place to be searched and electronic devices as the things to be seized, stating a warrant was not required to search a police locker.

The Superior Court held that characterizing an electronic device as an item to be seized and searched, rather than as a place to be searched, does not invalidate the warrant.

The court found the reviewing justice made an error in law and issued the order for certiorari and mandamus.

The applicant brought an ex parte application seeking an order to examine the respondent before trial in Montreal for an action pending in the Quebec Superior Court.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to proceed ex parte and noting multiple deficiencies in the materials.

Specifically, the applicant failed to comply with the Interprovincial Summonses Act by not providing a certificate signed by a judge, failing to tender witness fees, and not addressing the lack of reciprocal immunity provisions in Quebec.

The dismissal was without prejudice to bringing the application back on notice with a proper record.