Michael Jordan

The defendants brought a motion to set aside their noting in default and for leave to deliver a statement of defence.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the defendants were aware of the 30-day deadline and lacked an arguable defence.

Applying the test from Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, the court considered the context, including the short delay, the complexity of the claim, and the defendants' efforts to assemble documents.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the noting in default, allowing the defendants to file a defence, but declined to award costs against the plaintiff.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After mediation failed, she applied for arbitration.

At a pre-hearing, her counsel was removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing by teleconference.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding the applicant failed to meet her onus of proof by not attending, and dismissed the application for arbitration, awarding $1,000 in expenses to the insurer.

The appellant client appealed a decision dismissing his appeal from an Assessment Officer's report that upheld a solicitor's account.

The client disputed the terms of the retainer, alleging an oral agreement that limited fees if the firm did not take his case, while the solicitor relied on a written retainer for a legal opinion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Assessment Officer's decision, holding that an assessment officer lacks jurisdiction to resolve a bona fide dispute over the existence or terms of a retainer.

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal from an interlocutory order of a Master staying an oppression application under the OBCA.

The respondent argued the appeal was out of time under Rule 62.01, while the appellant argued the appeal was governed by s. 255 of the OBCA, which provides an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court held that an appeal from a Master's interlocutory order under the OBCA lies to a single judge of the Divisional Court by analogy to Rule 62.01.

Although the appeal was out of time, the court extended the time to appeal due to the novel procedural issue and dismissed the motion to quash.