Stay of proceedings

The moving party, McMaster University, brought a motion for leave to proceed with an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's determination, and requested a stay pending the review.

The Divisional Court granted leave to proceed with the judicial review but denied the request for a stay.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $8,800 to follow in the cause.

The applicant sought a stay of two decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal that revoked his vehicle-for-hire driver's licence, pending his application for judicial review.

The Tribunal had revoked the licence after finding the applicant repeatedly harassed and acted uncivilly toward by-law enforcement officers, even after completing anger management counselling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public and allowing by-law officers to fulfill their duties without harassment.

The appellants appealed a trial decision awarding the respondent $15,270 in Charter damages for breaches of his s. 10(b) rights during a police detention.

The respondent had previously been granted a stay of criminal proceedings for the same breaches.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to properly apply the Ward test for Charter damages.

The Court held that the stay of proceedings adequately served the functions of vindication and deterrence, and that an award of damages was not an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances.

The applicant career college sought judicial review of a decision by Accreditation Canada to revoke the accreditation of its Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program, and the Superintendent's subsequent decision to revoke the program's approval.

Accreditation Canada brought a motion to stay the judicial review proceedings under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the accreditation contract.

The Divisional Court found that while the accreditation decision was an exercise of statutory authority with sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review, the technical requirements for a mandatory stay in favour of arbitration were met.

The court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and that the subject matter was capable of being arbitrated.

The motion to stay the judicial review was granted.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to stay a civil action.

The appellants argued the respondent breached the common law implied undertaking rule by using documents disclosed in an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding to initiate the civil action.

The Divisional Court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not supplant the common law implied undertaking for administrative proceedings, and found that the respondent breached the undertaking.

However, because the appellants suffered no prejudice, the court declined to stay the action and instead ordered substantial indemnity costs against the respondent.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order pending the tenants' appeal.

The court had previously directed the tenants to make a lump sum payment and monthly payments towards rental arrears to maintain the stay.

The landlord filed an affidavit confirming the tenants breached the direction by failing to make a required payment.

Given the large arrears, the tenants' failure to perfect their appeal, and the prejudice to the landlord, the court granted the motion and lifted the stay of eviction.

The appellant appealed a decision of an Associate Justice staying its Ontario action against its former legal counsel based on a forum selection clause in the retainer agreement.

The appellant argued the Associate Justice lacked jurisdiction under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to apply the strong cause test for forum selection clauses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Justice had jurisdiction to stay the proceeding and made no palpable and overriding errors in enforcing the forum selection clause, which required disputes to be resolved in Alberta.

The applicant, an 83-year-old man, sought judicial review of the Minister of Transportation's decision to suspend his driver's license after he failed to provide medical evidence of his cognitive fitness to drive.

At a case conference, the applicant sought a stay of the suspension pending the hearing of the application.

The court dismissed the request for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured protecting the public over the applicant's desire to drive.

The defendant hospitals brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's civil proceedings, which arose from the termination of his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment of the motion pending the disposition of his related appeals before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) and a review motion in the Divisional Court.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that the results of the administrative proceedings could impact the viability of the civil claims, and stayed the civil proceeding in the interim.

The tenants appealed from interlocutory orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that their notice of appeal automatically stayed the proceedings, including a review of an eviction order.

The Divisional Court held that section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not confer a right of appeal from an interlocutory order, and therefore the appeal did not stay the proceedings.

The court also found that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness, as they deliberately chose not to attend the review hearing.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed an order lifting a CCAA stay and permitting bankruptcy petitions to proceed against the insolvent Ivaco companies.

The Superintendent argued that unpaid pension contributions subject to a deemed trust under the Pension Benefits Act should have been paid or segregated before bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the CCAA and BIA create a comprehensive federal insolvency scheme that leaves no gap for provincial deemed trusts to operate outside of bankruptcy.

The court also upheld the motions judge's discretionary decision to lift the stay and his order transferring the companies' head offices to Toronto under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences arising from a high-speed police chase in a stolen vehicle that crashed into a police cruiser.

The primary issue at trial was the identification of the driver.

The police failed to preserve the stolen vehicle and the damaged police cruiser for defence examination.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on the lost evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while the failure to preserve the evidence breached the appellant's section 7 Charter rights, a stay was not the appropriate remedy due to the defence's lack of diligence and tactical decisions.

The court also dismissed appeals regarding the jury instructions on eyewitness identification, the Crown's closing address, and the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentences imposed by a Justice of the Peace.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions on three counts and ordered them permanently stayed.

The sentences on two other counts were reduced to $3,500 each.

The accused chiropractor was charged with sexually assaulting a patient.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings due to a 16-month delay, finding a breach of the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The summary conviction appeal court overturned the stay, finding the trial judge erred in assessing prejudice and institutional delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the 12-month institutional delay was not unreasonable given the seriousness of the charge and the accused's failure to take steps to expedite the trial.

The moving parties, a Michigan lawyer and his law firm, sought a stay of proceedings pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The moving parties argued that if they were forced to file a statement of defence, it might constitute an attornment to Ontario's jurisdiction, rendering their leave application moot and causing irreparable harm.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the leave application raised a serious issue, the potential for attornment constituted irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay against all parties due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

The appellant appealed an order staying his employment action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in concluding the parties had agreed to a choice of law clause in an unsigned document.

Applying the test for the most appropriate forum, the Court held the respondents failed to demonstrate that Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum, noting the employment contract was carried out in Ontario and the proximity of Ottawa and Blainville minimized convenience factors.

The appeal was allowed and the stay set aside.

The appellant school board appealed a decision refusing to stay the respondent's Small Claims Court action.

The appellant argued that the respondent was arguably a member of the union, and an arbitrator should determine if the collective agreement applied under s. 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' conclusion that the respondent was not a union member, as the appellant failed to meet its evidentiary onus.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that his s. 7 Charter rights were breached due to missing initial disclosure statements from complainants and the late disclosure of the police file after the jury's guilty verdict.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the missing and late-disclosed materials were of marginal relevance and did not impact the right to a fair trial.

The appellant also argued that a delay in hearing his appeal, caused by issues obtaining transcripts, breached his Charter rights.

The Court dismissed this argument, finding no prejudice or abuse of process.

The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent on the basis of a 21-month delay violating her s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The respondent was charged with aggravated assault and failing to provide the necessaries of life after her infant child suffered multiple fractures.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in calculating the delay attributable to the Crown and overemphasized the prejudice suffered by the respondent.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted for trial, with Feldman J.A. dissenting.