Youssef Kodsy

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting the respondent an extension of time to file an amended statement of claim.

The respondent had brought a motion to vary a previous order under Rule 59.06, but the motion judge granted relief under Rule 3.02(1) without prior notice to the appellants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding a breach of procedural fairness because the appellants were denied the opportunity to file evidence of prejudice caused by the delay.

The matter was remitted to a different motion judge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Mario Oliveira Jr.'s application to review a motion judge's order refusing to extend the time to perfect his appeal.

The court found that while Mr. Oliveira had a genuine intention to perfect his appeal and was delayed by inaccurate information from court staff, the appeal itself was so devoid of merit that it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

The court agreed with the motion judge that the underlying claim was abusive and vexatious, and rejected the argument that the motion judge failed to account for Mr. Oliveira's self-represented status.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded against Mr. Oliveira Jr.

The appellant, Mario Oliveira, appealed two lower court decisions: the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action due to a breach of the deemed undertaking rule, and a finding of contempt for non-compliance with injunctive orders concerning a confidential union member list.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the wrongful dismissal action and the contempt finding.

However, it set aside the 89-day intermittent jail sentence for contempt, replacing it with a 14-day conditional sentence (house arrest), and reduced the contempt costs from $75,000 to $50,000.

At a case management conference in a certified class proceeding against Uber, the court considered whether to schedule the plaintiffs' proposed motions to amend their statement of claim and certify an additional common issue regarding an arbitration and class action waiver clause.

The defendants had already brought a motion to amend the class action notices.

Pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiffs' motions to be scheduled and heard together with the defendants' motion, and set a timetable for the delivery of materials and the hearing.

The appellant, Mario Oliveira, brought a motion to review a chambers judge's order that refused to extend time to perfect his appeal of a contempt order and other related orders.

The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge erred in principle by denying the extension primarily on the basis of perceived lack of merit, especially given the absence of written reasons for the contempt order.

The panel granted the extension of time for the appellant to perfect his appeal related to the contempt order, the subsequent sentencing decision, and to seek leave to appeal the costs order, while upholding the sealing order for a document filed in violation of the deemed undertaking rule.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated December 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The defendant was found in civil contempt for failing to abide by court orders and subsequently destroying devices subject to a court-ordered forensic inspection.

The plaintiffs sought a stay of a related action, but the court declined to order a stay at this stage.

Applying the factors for civil contempt sentencing, the court determined that a period of incarceration was appropriate but deferred the sentence due to Covid-19 concerns, allowing the defendant 30 days to provide submissions.

The defendant was previously found in contempt of court for failing to comply with orders requiring the return of confidential union information and the forensic inspection of his electronic devices.

Instead of purging his contempt, the defendant deliberately destroyed the devices.

The plaintiffs sought to stay the defendant's separate action in Brampton as a penalty.

The court declined to stay the action at this time and deferred sentencing to consider house arrest, requiring the defendant to provide details of his living situation.

Costs submissions were also ordered.