ODC 2003

The moving party father sought an extension of time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a trial decision granting Crown wardship without access.

The father missed the 30-day deadline under Rule 38 of the Family Law Rules but had expressed his intention to appeal shortly after the judgment.

The court applied the factors for extending time, finding the 30-day delay was not excessive, the intention to appeal was clear, and there was insufficient prejudice to the child's adoption prospects to deny the extension.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify an action against an investment advisor for negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy as a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge made no error in principle and correctly concluded that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to the individual issues of detrimental reliance.

The mortgagees brought a motion to quash the mortgagor's appeal of an order fixing the amount required to redeem the mortgage.

The Divisional Court held that the underlying order was interlocutory, as it determined a procedural question rather than the substantive merits of the action.

Because the mortgagor had not obtained leave to appeal the interlocutory order as required by section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, the appeal was quashed.

The court granted the mortgagor a brief extension to move for leave to appeal.