court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RULE 13 INTERVENTION LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS ADDED PARTY 13.01 (1) A person who is not a party to a proceeding may move for leave to intervene as an added party if the person claims, (a) an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding; (b) that the person may be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding; or (c) that there exists between the person and one or more of the parties to the proceeding a question of law or fact in common with one or more of the questions in issue in the proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.01 (1). (2) On the motion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties to the proceeding and the court may add the person as a party to the proceeding and may make such order as is just. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.01 (2). LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS FRIEND OF THE COURT 13.02 Any person may, with leave of a judge or at the invitation of the presiding judge or master, and without becoming a party to the proceeding, intervene as a friend of the court for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court by way of argument. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.02; O. Reg. 186/10, s. 1. LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN DIVISIONAL COURT OR COURT OF APPEAL 13.03 (1) Leave to intervene in the Divisional Court as an added party or as a friend of the court may be granted by a panel of the court, the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice or a judge designated by either of them. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.03 (1); O. Reg. 292/99, s. 4; O. Reg. 186/10, s. 2. (2) Leave to intervene as an added party or as a friend of the court in the Court of Appeal may be granted by a panel of the court, the Chief Justice of Ontario or the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.03 (2); O. Reg. 186/10, s. 2. Note: On July 1, 2012, subrule (2) is amended by striking out “the Chief Justice of Ontario or the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario” at the end and substituting “the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of Ontario or a judge designated by either of them”. See: O. Reg. 55/12, ss. 1, 16 (1). COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS RULE 13.1 PLACE OF COMMENCEMENT AND HEARING OR TRIAL PLACE OF COMMENCEMENT 1
Statute or Rule Governing Place of Commencement, Trial or Hearing 13.1.01 (1) If a statute or rule requires a proceeding to be commenced, brought, tried or heard in a particular county, the proceeding shall be commenced at a court office in that county and the county shall be named in the originating process. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 10. Choice of Place (2) If subrule (1) does not apply, the proceeding may be commenced at any court office in any county named in the originating process. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 10. TRANSFER Motion to Transfer to Another County 13.1.02 (1) If subrule 13.1.01 (1) applies to a proceeding but a plaintiff or applicant commences it in another place, the court may, on its own initiative or on any party’s motion, order that the proceeding be transferred to the county where it should have been commenced. O. Reg. 14/04, s. 10. (2) If subrule (1) does not apply, the court may, on any party’s motion, make an order to transfer the proceeding to a county other than the one where it was commenced, if the court is satisfied, (a) that it is likely that a fair hearing cannot be held in the county where the proceeding was commenced; or (b) that a transfer is desirable in the interest of justice, having regard to, (i) where a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim occurred, (ii) where a substantial part of the damages were sustained, (iii) where the subject-matter of the proceeding is or was located, (iv) any local community’s interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, (v) the convenience of the parties, the witnesses and the court, (vi) whether there are counterclaims, crossclaims, or third or subsequent party claims, (vii) any advantages or disadvantages of a particular place with respect to securing the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits, (viii) whether judges and court facilities are available at the other county, and 2
Page 1 and 2:
BETWEEN: Introduction ONTARIO SUPER
Page 3 and 4:
Costs should not be awarded to the
Page 5 and 6:
Order requested 22. The Defendant r
Page 7 and 8:
TAB 1
Page 9 and 10:
ancourtlibelcasecomment http://civi
Page 11 and 12:
- .1 ''l APPEARANCES: on Mr. R. Dea
Page 13 and 14:
pornt. 68. Submissions - Mr L-/CClI
Page 15 and 16:
10 rul ,tl '"1 I .^l t 93. Submissr
Page 17 and 18:
136. Reasons for Decision - Master
Page 19 and 20:
TAB 3
Page 21 and 22:
[6] When Hilltop learned of the tra
Page 23 and 24:
[19] On June 20, 2002 Greer J. gave
Page 25 and 26: [201] If I am wrong in my analysis
Page 27 and 28: $2,366,350.00 mortgage against the
Page 29 and 30: the earlier action; (c) the cause o
Page 31 and 32: TAB 4
Page 33 and 34: (i) any other matter relevant to th
Page 35 and 36: COSTS ON SETTLEMENT 57.04 Where a p
Page 39 and 40: - 2 - Indian Band, and David Anthon
Page 41 and 42: - 21 - 20 In the usual case, costs
Page 43 and 44: - 23 - 24 Similarly, in Skidmore v.
Page 45 and 46: - 25 - treated as an unlimited sour
Page 49 and 50: May. 9. 2012 l:2lPl\4 No. 1695 P. 9
Page 51 and 52: Mlay, 9 2012 l:2lPl\4 No, 1695 P 11
Page 53 and 54: lvlay. 9, 2012 1r22Pl\4 No. 1695 P
Page 55 and 56: jav. 9 2012 l:19PM Iro. 1695 P 2/14
Page 57 and 58: ,v1ay, 9. 2012 l:19PM No, 1695 P 4/
Page 59 and 60: May, 9. 2012 l:20P[1 No, 1695 P 6/
Page 63 and 64: NAME OF WITNESS: MR. ALLAN ROCK (i)
Page 65 and 66: 1 A. I've answered your question. 2
Page 67 and 68: 1 A. No. 2 186 Q. None? 3 A. No. 4
Page 71 and 72: constitute an improper motive or of
Page 73 and 74: Class Proceedings Act. In these ins
Page 75: TAB 9
show all

court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?