Walter Stasyshyn

The appellants sought an application for prohibition to prevent a provincial offence prosecution under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the prohibition application as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The motion judge granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that prohibition is a remedy for jurisdictional issues only, and the appellants' arguments were non-jurisdictional matters properly decided at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) brought a motion to stay, dismiss, or strike an application filed by Richard and Tracy Grey.

The Greys had been charged by OMVIC with acting as unregistered motor vehicle dealers and sought an order of prohibition from the Superior Court of Justice to prevent their trial in the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ).

OMVIC argued the application was frivolous and an abuse of process, contending that the Greys' defence should be heard at first instance in the OCJ, with a right of appeal to the Superior Court.

The court dismissed the Greys' application, finding it lacked legal merit, was premature, and constituted a collateral attack on the OCJ's authority, thus being an abuse of process.

Costs were awarded to OMVIC.

Three law firms brought competing carriage motions to represent a class of shareholders of Canopy Growth Corporation in a securities misrepresentation class action.

The court evaluated the competing claims under s. 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court granted carriage to the Dziedziejko action, finding that its longer class period, which included thousands of additional shareholders based on prior financial misrepresentations, better served the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification without sacrificing efficiency.

The competing Leonard and Twidale actions were stayed.