3 total
Motion to amend consent order dismissed as the Board lacks jurisdiction to vary it without mutual agreement.
The appellant filed a motion to amend a consent order regarding the proceeds of the sale of cattle removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.
The appellant requested that the proceeds be held by a third party instead of the respondent.
The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to amend a consent order without consent.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that it is a creature of statute and its powers under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act do not include the ability to vary a consent order without the agreement of both parties.
Plaintiff's attempt to accept a settlement offer after the motion hearing commenced was invalid; costs awarded to defendants.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs.
The self-represented plaintiff argued he was not liable for costs because he had accepted the defendants' offer to settle, which proposed a dismissal without costs.
The court found that the plaintiff attempted to accept the offer only after his request for an adjournment was denied at the motion hearing.
Applying Rule 49, the court held that the hearing had already commenced when the defendants' counsel first addressed the court, rendering the plaintiff's acceptance untimely.
The court awarded the defendants their requested costs of $15,881.04.
Professional negligence action dismissed for delay after self-represented plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court timetables.
The defendant lawyer brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action for delay under Rule 24.01.
The action was commenced in 2012 and had previously been administratively dismissed and reinstated with a strict timetable.
The self-represented plaintiff failed to comply with the timetable, failed to file responding materials, and repeatedly sought adjournments without adequate medical evidence.
The court found the plaintiff's delay to be intentional, contumelious, and inexcusable, causing significant prejudice to the defendants.
The motion was granted and the action was dismissed for delay and as an abuse of process.
