4 total
Appeal allowed; Small Claims judge erred by dismissing claim on own initiative without mandatory notice.
The plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court order that dismissed its claim for an unpaid credit card debt.
The motion judge had dismissed the claim on her own initiative, without notice or submissions, on the basis that it was barred by the limitation period.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the judge failed to follow the mandatory notice and submission requirements under Rule 12.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.
The matter was remitted back to the Small Claims Court for trial.
Motion for extension of time to seek leave to appeal dismissed due to lack of merit.
The moving party, a chiropractor, sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that upheld findings of professional misconduct and a costs award against him.
The Court of Appeal applied the test for extending time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeal.
Finding that the proposed appeals regarding costs, liability, and penalty lacked merit and did not raise an arguable question of law or matter of public importance, the court dismissed the motion for an extension of time.
Chiropractor's appeal of professional misconduct findings, 12-month suspension, and $166,000 costs award largely dismissed.
The appellant chiropractor appealed the liability, penalty, and costs decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario.
The appellant had been found guilty of professional misconduct for sending threatening emails to a colleague who had previously complained about him, and for failing to cooperate with the College's investigation.
The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct regarding the inappropriate communications and the initial failure to cooperate, but set aside the finding that the appellant failed to cooperate after an investigator was appointed.
The court upheld the penalty, which included a 12-month suspension and a $10,000 fine.
A majority of the court also upheld the costs award of $166,194.50 against the appellant, finding it reasonable given the circumstances of the hearing.
Judicially supervised sale permitted as alternative to sheriff’s sale for enforcing money judgments.
A judgment creditor applied for orders directing a reference to inquire into issues relating to the sale of real property owned by judgment debtors as a means of enforcing unpaid money judgments.
The court considered whether the sheriff’s sale mechanism under the Execution Act constituted the exclusive method for enforcing judgments against land.
Applying principles of equitable execution and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the court held that a judicially supervised sale process could be used where appropriate.
The court also recognized that privacy restrictions under PIPEDA may impede the sheriff’s sale process by preventing mortgagees from providing discharge statements to execution creditors.
The application was granted and a reference ordered to determine the interests in the properties and the propriety of a judicially supervised sale.
