Kary-Anne Layng

The self-represented plaintiff moved under Rule 63.02 to stay a previous order denying her motion for the appointment of amicus, pending her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court found that Rule 63.02 did not empower it to stay the action and that there was nothing in the previous order that needed to be stayed.

However, recognizing the plaintiff's disability and the practical difficulties of pursuing matters in two courts simultaneously, the court dismissed the motion to stay the order but directed under Rule 1.05 that no further steps be taken in the action until the Divisional Court determines the appeal.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion regarding roof leaks and parking lot issues against the defendant condominium corporation and property management.

The defendants brought a cross-motion.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment because she had not received the defendants' responding materials in an accessible format.

The court granted the adjournment and set a timetable for service.

The court also summarily dismissed the plaintiff's motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a previous order denying the appointment of amicus, finding it to be an abuse of process as the rule does not permit re-arguing a decided matter.

The self-represented plaintiff in a condominium dispute moved for the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist her in litigating the matter, citing her mental illness.

She provided a letter from her psychiatrist stating she was capable of instructing counsel but would benefit from an amicus.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not a party under a disability requiring a litigation guardian and that the role of an amicus is to assist the court, not to act as state-funded legal counsel for a party.

The court noted the plaintiff's disability would be accommodated during the proceedings.