Samuel Willoughby

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision denying a stay of proceedings under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The court agreed that the underlying application was a straightforward Charter-based constitutional challenge of a federal law regarding citizenship, rather than a matter involving the administrative handling of citizenship files.

The appellants appealed a decision of the class proceedings judge who struck out their Amended Amended Statement of Claim.

The judge had put the appellants to an election to either abandon the proposed amendment or proceed with it after submissions on costs thrown away, pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge made no error in her analysis and application of section 12 to ensure the fair and expeditious determination of the proceeding.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sought leave to extend the time to appeal a Master's decision that refused him leave to amend his statement of claim against Legal Aid Ontario.

The plaintiff had initially filed the appeal in the wrong court and delayed significantly in transferring it to the Divisional Court despite being notified of the error.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay inordinate and poorly explained, the proposed appeal entirely without merit, and that further delay would prejudice the self-represented defendant.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondents' blanket denials of wrongdoing satisfied the threshold for a Rule 20 motion, and that the appellants' materials failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

The Discipline Committee heard a joint submission to discontinue professional misconduct proceedings against the member.

The member agreed to resign, have his Certificate of Qualification and Registration cancelled, and consent to the publication of the discontinuance terms, including that his appeal of his convictions had been dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Committee agreed to discontinue the proceedings on these conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft under s. 322 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant had taken possession of goods after making a down payment with a cheque he knew would be dishonoured.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Ontario Court of Appeal that the appellant was properly convicted of theft.