3 total
Judicial review of Small Claims Court interlocutory costs order dismissed as an improper disguised appeal.
The applicant lawyer commenced a Small Claims Court action against a former client for unpaid fees.
After failing to comply with a production order requiring documents to be organized chronologically, the Deputy Judge ordered the applicant to pay $2,000 in costs.
The applicant sought judicial review of this interlocutory costs order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it was essentially an appeal by a different name and that the Deputy Judge had jurisdiction to impose costs for litigation misconduct without breaching natural justice.
Appeal from order striking equitable set-off defence dismissed; prohibition on future amendments deleted.
The appellants appealed an order striking portions of their statement of defence and counterclaim which claimed equitable set-off against the respondent personally.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no connection between the struck paragraphs and the allegations of set-off.
However, the Court deleted a paragraph of the order that appeared to prohibit future amendments, clarifying it was merely commentary.
The appeal was otherwise dismissed.
Insurer's ambiguous Assessment of Claim form failed to trigger the limitation period for arbitration.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until August 1994.
The insurer argued the applicant's request for arbitration was time-barred under subsection 281(5) of the Insurance Act, relying on an Assessment of Claim form dated July 26, 1994 as its notice of refusal.
The arbitrator found the form did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 24(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because it was self-contradictory, stating the claim was 'accepted in its entirety' while also referencing a final settlement, and failed to provide clear reasons for refusal.
Consequently, the limitation period was not triggered, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.
