Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 084/26 ML
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: CHRISTOPHER DU CARMUR, Moving Party
AND:
RALPH SICKINGER, CANNAFUENTE INTERNATIONAL INC., SKY KOVE INTERNATIONAL, JOHN THOMAS SICKINGER, THOMAS-ESTATE SICKINGER, Respondents
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Jason E. Bogle, for the Moving Party
Submissions not sought from the Respondents
READ at Toronto: May 6, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.
1This court directed the Registrar to give notice to the Moving Party pursuant to r. 2.1 in respect to this file, commenced in Toronto, and in respect to an application for judicial review commenced by the Moving Party in Brampton.
2This file is in respect to a motion to extend time, and if the extension be granted, a motion for leave to appeal the interlocutory decision of Derkstine J. dated May 30, 2025, dismissing the Moving Party’s motion for summary judgment.
3The court will dismiss a proceeding pursuant to r. 2.1 only in the “clearest of cases”. I have concluded that, in respect to the leave to appeal proceedings, this is not one of the “clearest of cases”. These proceedings should now move forward with reasonable promptness. To achieve this, I direct as follows:
(a) The motion for an extension shall be heard in writing at the same time as the motion for leave to appeal;
(b) The Moving Party shall deliver their motion materials for the extension motion, and for the leave motion, by June 5, 2026.
(c) The Responding Party shall deliver responding materials on these motions by July 3, 2026.
(d) The Moving Party shall deliver any reply materials by July 24, 2026.
(e) The parties are reminded to comply with the court’s Practice Direction (Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings – Ontario Superior Court of Justice). The court particularly notes the requirement that a costs agreement, or costs materials, shall be delivered at least seven days before the hearing.
4The underlying litigation is not stayed pending the leave motion proceedings or the underlying appeal (if leave be granted).
Explanation
5I am satisfied that there is an arguable basis for the request for an extension – whether that request will succeed will be for the panel to decide. In respect to the merits of the leave motion, the proposed leave motion is not an abuse of process. It is trite to observe that the “bar is high” to obtain leave to appeal and interlocutory order, but for the late filing of the motion, the Moving Party would be permitted to pursue the motion to a panel decision. I would not dismiss it on the merits pursuant to r. 2.1 simply because the motion is late – the lateness issue will be decided by the panel on the extension motion.
6This decision applies to the leave motion proceedings commenced in Toronto. It does not apply to the judicial review proceedings commenced in Brampton. The Moving Party was required to provide r. 2.1 submissions respecting the judicial review proceedings. None have been received thus far. The Moving Party is directed to advise, by email, by May 12, 2026, whether the failure to respond to the r. 2.1 notice regarding the judicial review proceedings was an oversight, and if so, the early date by which those submissions will be provided to the court.
“D.L. Corbett J.”
Released: May 6, 2026