24 total
Appeal from order setting aside bankruptcy discharge dismissed; fresh evidence properly admitted.
The appellant appealed a decision setting aside his bankruptcy discharge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the issue of standing was not raised below and could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
The court also upheld the admission of fresh evidence and agreed that there were grounds to set aside the discharge under s. 158(j) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Motion granted; Ontario Racing Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear OHHA's application.
The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) requested a hearing regarding the actions of Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).
WEG brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Racing Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The Panel granted WEG's motion, finding that the Commission had no jurisdiction, and dismissed OHHA's application.
Appeal quashed as the same constitutional issue was previously decided and defendants caused unacceptable delay.
The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge.
The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the same constitutional issue had already been decided in respect of a closely connected defendant in the same proceeding.
The court also noted that the trial was imminent, several plaintiffs were critically ill, and the defendants had engaged in a proliferation of proceedings resulting in unacceptable delay.
Class action plaintiffs need not answer discovery questions about their opinions on alternative compensation schemes.
The defendants in a proposed class action appealed a motions judge's decision refusing to compel the proposed plaintiffs to answer questions about an alternative compensation scheme.
The Divisional Court held that 'procedure' in s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act includes alternative dispute resolution methods outside the court system.
However, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that whether an alternative method is preferable is an objective determination for the motions judge, and little is gained by asking the proposed plaintiffs for their opinion on the matter.