None

The moving party, Ms. Guillaume, brought a motion to set aside an order of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that dismissed her motion for leave to appeal for delay.

The underlying appeal concerned a judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board regarding the removal and care costs of 41 cats.

Ms. Guillaume failed to file acceptable motion materials despite extensions and notices, and provided no explanation for the delay.

The court dismissed her motion, finding no merit in the proposed appeal and concluding that the justice of the case did not favour setting aside the dismissal order.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee with a will.

The application judge had refused the appointment due to concerns about the appellant's potential unlicensed practice of law, given his professional history and involvement in the will's preparation and subsequent rapid steps to secure his appointment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, confirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to refuse an estate trustee appointment, even if unopposed, to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court also dismissed a motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced earlier.

The applicant, a lawyer, brought an application seeking a judicial inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel, who had reported concerns about the applicant's mental health and competence to the Law Society of Ontario.

The applicant also sought to stay the Law Society's investigation.

The court summarily dismissed the application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01, finding it had no jurisdiction to order a judicial inquiry and that the Law Society is the proper forum for determining a lawyer's competence.

The applicant sought to vary a 2010 final order for child support to account for the children's university education.

The respondent, with a history of non-disclosure and abuse of process, had his pleadings struck, leading to an uncontested hearing.

The court imputed income to the respondent and ordered payment of s. 7 expenses and substantial arrears.

The decision also critically examined a recent interim order granted to the respondent, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to litigation and a stringent test for interim variations of final orders.

The appellants sought to appeal a Superior Court order refusing a sealing order, made in the context of a disability settlement approval.

The preliminary issue for the Court of Appeal was to determine if the order refusing the sealing order was a final or interlocutory order for jurisdictional purposes.

The Court found that the order, along with other concurrent orders dismissing claims, constituted a final disposition of the proceeding, thus making it a final order properly appealable to the Court of Appeal.

The Applicants, a group of Just Energy entities under CCAA protection, sought an order authorizing them, as foreign representative, to pursue claims under s. 36.1 of the CCAA (fraudulent preferences and transfers undervalue) in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court adversary proceeding against the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUCT).

ERCOT challenged the foreign representative's standing, arguing that only the Monitor had such standing under a strict reading of s. 36.1(2)(b) of the CCAA.

The court, emphasizing a broad and liberal interpretation of the CCAA and its interplay with the BIA, found that s. 36.1(1) allows for "modifications that the circumstances require." It ruled that allowing the foreign representative to pursue the claims, with the Monitor's support and supervision, was consistent with the CCAA's objectives of facilitating debtor restructuring and benefiting stakeholders.

The court granted the order, allowing the foreign representative to pursue the claims nunc pro tunc, with the Monitor assisting and supervising.

A jury panel member requested to be excused from jury duty because she had recently become employed as a probation officer.

The court considered whether a probation officer is a 'person engaged in the enforcement of law' under section 3(1) of the Juries Act.

The court reviewed the duties of a probation officer under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and similar legislation in other provinces.

The court concluded that a probation officer is engaged in law enforcement and is therefore ineligible to serve on a jury in Ontario.

The panel member was excused.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending group, class counsel for Ontario consumer class actions sought court approval of contingency fees and disbursements following settlement of related class proceedings.

The settlements produced monetary recoveries exceeding $10 million for class members, with potential additional recovery from future litigation proceeds.

The court reviewed the reasonableness of the requested 25% contingency fee and disbursements using established factors including results achieved, litigation risk, and responsibility assumed by class counsel.

The motion was unopposed.

The court concluded the requested fees and disbursements were reasonable and approved the amounts.

The husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that refused his motion to sever his claim for divorce from the wife's claims for corollary relief.

The motion judge had refused severance on the basis that the husband's failure to make financial disclosure prejudiced the wife, and severing the divorce could prejudice her potential claims against his estate in the event of intestacy.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the potential loss of intestacy rights and insurance coverage constituted legal disadvantage under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.