3 total
Appeal dismissed; Master properly allowed delayed action to proceed under Rule 48.14.
The defendant appealed a Master's order allowing an action to continue under Rule 48.14(13) of the Rules of Civil Procedure after delay.
The underlying action alleged negligence and breach of contract by an accountant relating to tax consequences of a U.S. real estate transaction, and involved a significant limitation period issue.
The Master found the plaintiffs provided a satisfactory explanation for post‑litigation delay and that no real prejudice to the defendant had been established despite the death of one plaintiff and the defendant’s health concerns.
On appeal, the court held the Master applied the correct legal principles governing delay and status hearings and committed no palpable or overriding error in assessing explanation and prejudice.
The appeal on the merits and the challenge to the costs decision were both dismissed.
Action administratively dismissed for delay reinstated due to parties' prior agreement to hold proceedings in abeyance.
The plaintiff moved to reinstate a professional negligence action that was administratively dismissed for delay in 2007.
The parties had previously agreed to hold the action in abeyance pending the outcome of related tax litigation, but a court order only extended the time for service by six months.
The Master found that the delay was adequately explained by the parties' understanding to adjourn the matter sine die, the missed deadline was due to inadvertence, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.
The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted.
Judicial review of student expulsion quashed; off-school marijuana use lacked proven nexus to school climate.
The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board that quashed the expulsion of a student for off-school marijuana use.
The Tribunal had found insufficient evidence of a nexus between the student's off-school activities and the school climate.
The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the moot application, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable and correct in its interpretation of the Education Act.
