5 total
Appeal from scheduling order quashed for lack of jurisdiction as the order is interlocutory.
The appellant appealed a scheduling order made by the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that a scheduling order is an interlocutory order because it does not determine the merits of the dispute.
Therefore, the appeal should have been brought to the Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.
No costs were awarded.
Registrar's dismissal orders set aside; inmate assault actions reinstated on strict terms.
The plaintiffs brought motions to set aside Registrar's dismissal orders issued in May 2024 in two related inmate assault and conditions of confinement actions commenced in 2015.
Applying the Piedrahita framework, the court found the delay was adequately explained by consent timetables, pandemic disruptions, and counsel's early-2024 practice upheaval.
The motions were brought promptly after the dismissals became known, and the Crown did not demonstrate significant prejudice precluding a fair trial, particularly given its own participation in setting the litigation pace.
The dismissal orders were set aside and the actions reinstated on a strict enforceable timetable.
Application for judicial review dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 because the court lacks jurisdiction to award damages.
The applicant brought an application for judicial review against various police respondents and the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, noting that it does not have jurisdiction to award damages on an application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.
Judicial review of accreditation decision stayed in favour of arbitration pursuant to contract clause.
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.
Motion to stay revocation of career college program approval dismissed for lack of irreparable harm.
The applicant career college brought a motion for a stay of the Superintendent's decision to revoke approval of its diagnostic medical sonography program pending a judicial review application.
The revocation followed the loss of the program's accreditation status.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm, such as financial inability to pay required student refunds.
Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay to allow students to receive refunds and pursue education elsewhere, rather than remaining trapped in an unaccredited program.
