Juanita Valencia

The moving party brought a motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's order requiring her to post $50,000 in security for costs of her appeal.

The panel found no error in principle, unreasonable result, legal error, or misapprehension of material evidence in the motion judge's decision.

The motion judge had considered 11 outstanding costs orders totalling over $146,000, the moving party's lack of diligence in perfecting her appeal, and the prejudice to the estate beneficiaries.

The panel declined to consider new affidavit evidence filed after the motion judge's decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs of $10,000 payable to the responding party.

The applicant, Xin Peng, sought a review of a motion judge's order that dismissed her motion to extend the time to file a motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order.

The Divisional Court had previously dismissed her motion for leave to appeal from two costs orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis or conclusion.

The court affirmed that the Divisional Court is not required to provide reasons for refusing leave to appeal, as this is standard practice for appellate courts.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found the proposed motion for leave to appeal to be without merit.

The review motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party, May Hing Tam.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal two orders.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The court considered a non-suit motion in a stunt driving case under the Highway Traffic Act, where the alleged offence occurred in a private parking lot.

The central issue was whether the stunt driving provision (s. 172(1) H.T.A.), which explicitly refers to "highway" applies to private property.

The court reviewed the common law "general rule" that H.T.A. provisions are limited to highways unless otherwise specified.

However, it found that s. 1.1 of the H.T.A. empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to extend H.T.A. provisions to non-highways via regulation.

Specifically, O. Reg. 455/07, as amended by O. Reg. 598/21 (effective September 12, 2021), explicitly states that s. 172 applies to "specified places" including public and private parking lots.

Applying the principle of legislative paramountcy, the regulation supersedes the common law "general rule." The court ruled that the stunt driving offence under s. 172(1) H.T.A. applies to private parking lots, effectively denying the non-suit motion.

The applicant mother sought a declaratory order that the child, Vivian Wu, was wrongfully retained by the father in Mexico City since August 14, 2022, and an order for her immediate return to Ontario under the Hague Convention and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father failed to participate in the proceedings despite notice.

The court found that Ontario was the child's habitual residence and declared the retention wrongful, ordering the child's forthwith return to Markham, Ontario.

The court also granted the mother's request for letters rogatory to ensure proper service on the father in Mexico.