Court File and Parties
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
ALI GELLE, by his Litigation Guardian Sahra Gelle
Plaintiff
- and -
KACABA & ASSOCIATES, MICHAEL F. KACABA, KAREN ELLIOTT, TOTAL REHABILITATION MANAGEMENT INC., JUDITH KENNEDY, THE CITADEL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY and DENYSE RUFFOLO
Defendants
Counsel:
F. A. Burns and Michael C. Ellis, for the Plaintiff
Lauren M. Bloom, for the Defendant Citadel and Denyse Ruffolo
HEARD: March 11, 2003
Oral Reasons for Judgment
ARCHIE CAMPBELL J.: (Orally)
[1]
Background
The facts are set out in the factums.
[2]
Analysis
Litigation had not commenced. The case was still in the statutory scheme and s.9.1 applies. See Igbokwe, paras. 17 and 18, and Kibalian. There is no reason to doubt correctness on this point.
3As for sufficiency of the settlement documents, the learned Judge applied the legally binding authority to the facts of the case without any apparent error.
4The moving party now adds a third ground not set out in the notice of motion for leave to appeal, as to whether the motions Judge should have determined as a fact whether the settlements documents complied with a regulation. That ground may perhaps have been raised indirectly before the motions Judge, but certainly not in the direct manner in which the moving party seeks to raise it here.
5It is doubtful whether this ground of appeal should be entertained under these circumstances.
6In any event, having regard to the massive non-compliance catalogued in paragraphs 24-26 of the judgment, none of which involved any real conflict of evidence, it appears that the judge simply applied the legal requirements to the uncontested evidence before her. It does not appear that she either exceeded her jurisdiction or erred in so doing.
7Although the respondent argues that the March, 2002 change in the regulations deprives this case of any general importance, it is not necessary to go that far.
8The Judge applied a well known set of principles to a basically uncontested set of facts. Her judgment raises no question of general public importance as is required for leave to appeal.
[9]
Disposition
Despite Ms. Bloom's able argument, the motion is dismissed.
[10]
Costs
Costs to the respondent, fixed at $2,000.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 11, 2003
Date of Release: March 12, 2003
COURT FILE NO.: 739/02
DATE: 20030311
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
ALI GELLE, by his Litigation Guardian Sahra Gelle
Plaintiff
- and -
KACABA & ASSOCIATES, MICHAEL F. KACABA, KAREN ELLIOTT, TOTAL REHABILITATION MANAGEMENT INC., JUDITH KENNEDY, THE CITADEL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY and DENYSE RUFFOLO
Defendants
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ARCHIE CAMPBELL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 11, 2003
Date of Release: March 12, 2003