Oriana Pollitt

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal multiple orders.

The court allowed the motion for leave to appeal a 2020 costs order to proceed.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal a 2021 order as moot and an abuse of process, noting the moving party's abusive behavior towards court staff and relentless, meritless appeals.

The moving party's motion for the case management judge's recusal was also dismissed as moot.

The self-represented moving party had four pending matters in the Divisional Court relating to underlying family law proceedings.

Because a final trial judgment had recently been rendered, the court issued notices under Rule 2.1 indicating it was considering dismissing several of the interlocutory appeals and review motions as moot.

The court also provided case management directions regarding a motion for leave to appeal a costs order, a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring prior leave to bring further motions, and the moving party's proposed motion seeking the judge's recusal.

The moving party, self-represented, sought a stay of proceedings and costs orders pending decisions on his multiple motions for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the stay request without requiring responding materials, finding that the moving party had failed to comply with previous court directions and timelines, thereby disentitling himself to equitable relief.

The court set final deadlines for the moving party to serve and upload his motion materials for leave to appeal, failing which the motions would be dismissed as abandoned.

The self-represented moving party sought to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that declined to extend the time to seek leave to appeal.

The moving party claimed to have mailed a notice of motion shortly after the decision, but the court had no record of it.

Acknowledging the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the moving party's circumstances, the court permitted the motion to review to proceed before a panel of three judges, subject to strict terms regarding deadlines and the materials that could be filed.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' four children to Australia, arguing they were wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The children had been living in Ontario for six years with the consent of both parents, though the father argued the intention was always to return to Australia.

Applying the hybrid approach to habitual residence, the court found that the focal point of the children's lives was in Ontario and that parental intention did not outweigh their significant ties to the province.

The application was dismissed.