6 total
Case management endorsement addressing a potential recusal motion and the possible application of Rule 2.1.
A case management endorsement addressing correspondence from counsel for the Concerned Citizens of North Stormont regarding a potential recusal motion based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.
The court noted that no decision had been made to proceed with the motion and discussed the potential application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court left it to the parties to decide how to proceed, noting that ongoing settlement discussions could affect their decisions.
The court issued case management directions regarding a potential recusal motion and Rule 2.1 notice.
This case management endorsement addresses procedural issues arising from a request by Concerned Citizens of North Stormont to discuss a possible recusal motion.
The court clarifies that allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias should be raised at the earliest opportunity, with counsel's knowledge being relevant.
It also discusses the court's jurisdiction to issue a Rule 2.1 notice in such circumstances and acknowledges the role of ongoing settlement discussions.
Court issued procedural directions regarding time allocations, costs materials, and counsel sheets.
The court issued a case management endorsement providing procedural directions ahead of a scheduled hearing.
The parties were directed to agree on time allocations for oral argument, file agreements or materials regarding costs, and submit counsel sheets.
The court also noted that an amended version of a prior endorsement would be released to correct unintended repetition and add a neutral citation.
Case management directions issued for a virtual hearing and electronic document filing.
A case management endorsement setting out directions for a virtual hearing via Zoom before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.
The court provided a schedule for the service of materials and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.
Title rectified after bare trustee fraudulently sold property by falsely swearing he was not an execution debtor.
The plaintiffs, beneficial owners of a property, sought a declaration of ownership and a vesting order after the defendant bare trustee sold the property without their consent.
The trustee, who was subject to personal executions, signed a false affidavit stating he was not the execution debtor to complete the sale.
The court found the trustee was a 'fraudulent person' under the Land Titles Act and the transfer was a 'fraudulent instrument'.
The purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser without notice, as suspicious circumstances put him on inquiry.
The court declared the transfer void and ordered the title rectified to reflect the beneficial ownership interests.
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; proper route is to the Court of Appeal with leave.
The appellant sought to appeal a decision of a Superior Court judge who had dismissed his appeals from two Small Claims Court decisions.
The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction.
The Divisional Court agreed it lacked jurisdiction, noting that the Superior Court judge was hearing appeals, not a motion.
Consequently, the proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal with leave under section 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.
The appeal was dismissed without a determination on the merits.
