Michael O’Sullivan

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order made following a summary judgment motion regarding the closure of bank accounts.

The Divisional Court refused leave, finding that the motion judge made no error in principle and the costs award was not plainly wrong.

The motion judge appropriately considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the importance of the issue, the applicant's voluminous written questions, and the parties' settlement offers.

Both parties brought motions before the Divisional Court.

The defendant's representative sought leave to represent the corporate defendant, which was granted as he had been representing the Society throughout the proceedings.

The plaintiff sought leave to correct the identity of the corporate defendant due to a misnomer.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding it was a simple misnomer, the defendant had not been misled, and there was no prejudice to the defendant.

No costs were awarded as success was divided.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its negligence claim against a mediator.

The mediator had issued a Certificate of Non-Compliance that erroneously referred to a separate legal action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal because the moving party could not establish any damages causally connected to the error, and any remedy would properly be against the Condominium Corporation rather than the mediator.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing its appeal for delay.

The underlying case involved a Small Claims Court award for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time without a motion to extend, lacked evidentiary support explaining the delay, and showed no apparent merit to the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding fee estimates and time extensions for producing records.

The Divisional Court held that the decision was procedural in nature and fell squarely within the Commissioner's expertise.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the court found the decision was not irrational and dismissed the application.