Schreck J.

The moving party, Mir Kamal, sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed his application as abandoned.

The HRTO had dismissed the application after the moving party failed to respond to a jurisdictional inquiry.

The Divisional Court found that the moving party failed to establish apparent grounds for relief, as his materials did not sufficiently show that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable.

Additionally, the court noted that the moving party provided no explanation for his nine-month delay in seeking judicial review.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Alka Singh appealed a Small Claims Court decision that struck her claim against Air Canada on the basis that the assignment of claims from her sister and niece was invalid and champertous.

The Divisional Court held that the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act applies to personal property and choses in action, not just real property.

The court also found that the assignment did not violate the rules against champerty and maintenance because the appellant had a pre-existing financial interest and familial relationship.

The appeal was allowed, the order striking the pleadings was set aside, and the appellant was granted leave to amend her claim.

The applicants sought judicial review of a 2019 directive issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario regarding the redistribution of previously forfeited funds.

The respondents argued that the applicants lacked standing because their rights to the funds were extinguished by a final 2013 forfeiture order, and that the application was barred by excessive delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the forfeiture order covered the entirety of the frozen funds and was final.

The court also held that the applicants' six-year delay in perfecting the application was excessive, unexplained, and prejudicial.