Not provided

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment.

The Court granted the extension motion but dismissed the leave application with costs.

The disposition confirms that procedural relief on timing did not result in leave being granted.

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment.

The Court granted the extension motion but dismissed the leave application with costs.

The disposition confirms that procedural relief on timing did not result in leave being granted.

The defendant vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claim against him arising from a rear-end collision, arguing the driver had taken the vehicle without consent under s.192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The record included a statutory declaration from the driver asserting she had taken the vehicle without consent, but conflicting statements and incomplete discovery evidence raised credibility concerns.

The court held that inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps, and unresolved credibility issues prevented a fair determination on the written record.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court declined to grant summary judgment and ordered a limited oral hearing.

A mini-trial was directed to determine whether the driver had the owner’s implied consent to possess the vehicle.