Ameena Sultan

The applicants sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a motions judge following a consent order settling an estate administration dispute.

The motions judge had fixed costs based on written submissions, awarding the applicants $20,000 and the respondents $15,000.

The applicants argued the judge erred by not awarding full indemnity costs and by not reviewing the entire court file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no error in principle in the motions judge's exercise of discretion and no conflicting decisions or matters of general importance to justify leave.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by police officers and sought to file a claim with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Board refused to issue an application form on the basis that no criminal charges were brought against the officers and it lacked credible evidence of an assault.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board denied the applicant procedural fairness by prejudging the merits of his claim under the guise of its gatekeeping function.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to validate the service of a statement of claim in a malicious prosecution action.

The claim was sent by regular mail to the respondent, a private citizen, but no receipt was returned and no personal or substitutional service was effected.

Although the Court of Appeal was satisfied the claim came to the respondent's notice, it found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision under Rule 16.08(a) to dismiss the motion, noting that almost ten years had passed since the events in question.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal, ordering that the notice of appeal and related documents must be served on the respondent personally as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.