J. Van Bakel is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2022.

What courts has J. Van Bakel appeared in?

J. Van Bakel has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has J. Van Bakel handled?

J. Van Bakel has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2022.

What judges has J. Van Bakel appeared before?

J. Van Bakel has most frequently appeared before Justice Joan M. Haberman, Justice Brian W. Abrams, Justice F. Bruce Fitzpatrick.

J. Van Bakel | Lawyer

3 total

Lafontaine v. The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay et al, 2022 ONSC 3309

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order administratively dismissing her 2011 slip and fall action for delay.

The action was dismissed after failing to be restored to the trial list within two years of being struck on consent.

Applying the four-part test from Prescott v. Barbon, the court found the plaintiff's counsel's documented medical condition provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The court concluded the plaintiff always intended to prosecute the action, moved forthwith upon learning of the dismissal, and the defendants suffered no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted and the action restored to the trial list.

SCJJun 2, 2022

Applicant Counsel

Hodge v. Toronto Police Service et al., 2015 ONSC 5508

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing his civil action as abandoned and sought extensions to validate or extend service of the statement of claim and amend the claim.

The underlying action alleged negligent investigation and malicious prosecution arising from a traffic stop and drug-related charges that were later stayed.

The court applied the contextual factors governing reinstatement of actions dismissed for delay, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay insufficiently explained, the evidence regarding counsel’s health issues unsubstantiated, and the motion not brought promptly after dismissal.

Presumed and potential actual prejudice to the defendants was not rebutted.

The court declined to set aside the dismissal order.

SCJSep 2, 2015

Applicant Counsel

Okafor et al v. White Duncan Linton et al, 2013 ONSC 5902

A status hearing was conducted under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether a civil action alleging solicitor negligence should be dismissed for delay.

The plaintiffs had taken no meaningful steps to advance the action for approximately three years after pleadings closed and repeatedly sought adjournments of the status hearing.

Their explanations for delay—including alleged difficulty retaining counsel, health issues, and motor vehicle accidents—were vague, unsupported by adequate evidence, and failed to address the legal test requiring both an acceptable explanation for delay and absence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to meet their onus to show cause why the action should proceed.

The action was therefore dismissed for delay.

Respondent Counsel