Dr. Wood Hill

The applicant law firm obtained a default judgment in Small Claims Court against the respondent for unpaid legal fees.

The respondent successfully moved to set aside the default judgment, citing mental health issues that caused him to miss settlement conferences.

The applicant sought judicial review of the order setting aside the default judgment and brought a motion for a stay to prevent the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the respondent's home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court noted that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory Small Claims Court order and judicial review cannot be used to circumvent this.

The applicant, who was 15 years old and had cognitive limitations at the time of the offences, sought an extension of time to appeal a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) verdict entered 12 years prior.

The applicant argued that he only recently understood the indefinite nature of the NCR disposition and raised several grounds of appeal, including a flawed plea process and fresh psychiatric evidence suggesting he was not NCR.

The court granted the extension, finding that in cases involving youthful offenders with cognitive deficits, the merit of the appeal is the central factor, and the applicant had demonstrated sufficient merit to justify the extension.

The defendant in a civil action for damages arising from a double homicide appealed a Master's decision finding insufficient evidence that he was a person under a disability.

The defendant's former counsel had withheld psychiatric reports from the Master due to concerns about solicitor-client privilege.

On appeal, the court admitted the psychiatric reports as fresh evidence, holding that the traditional due diligence criterion for fresh evidence should yield where compelling psychiatric evidence exists and the interests of justice require its admission to protect a vulnerable person.

The appeal was allowed and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as litigation guardian.