Susan Jane Bennett

The self-represented plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order staying their civil action pending the final disposition of related criminal proceedings against one of the plaintiffs.

The civil action alleged various torts and Charter breaches arising from wiretap authorizations that led to the criminal charges.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court noted that the fundamental issue in the civil claim—the lawfulness of the wiretap authorization—was identical to a key issue in the criminal case, making the circumstances exceptional enough to warrant a stay.

The self-represented plaintiffs, who are currently incarcerated, brought a motion to extend the time to deliver a motion for leave to appeal an order staying their civil action pending the disposition of criminal charges against one of the plaintiffs.

The court found that the plaintiffs had a bona fide intention to appeal, adequately explained the delay caused by their incarceration and administrative errors, and that the defendants suffered no prejudice.

The court also found that the proposed leave to appeal motion had merit, as the motion judge had not considered the high threshold required to stay a civil proceeding pending criminal charges.

The extension of time was granted, and costs were awarded to the moving party.