Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Legal Resources

(Ontario)

Most Popular
Contracts / Torts / Evidence / Limitations / Tenant Plus / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer / E-Access
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL COURT / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW

home / about / Little Friends Lefkada (Greece) / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Associated Site
Canadian Animal Law

Appeals - Court of Appeal Motion Set Asides [CJA 7(5)]

. Asghar v. Toronto (Police Services Board)

In Asghar v. Toronto (Police Services Board) (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal considered a motion to set aside a chambers judge's order:
[5] On this panel review motion, Mr. Asghar seeks to set aside the order of the chambers judge and obtain the same relief sought on the underlying motion. We decline to grant that relief.

[6] A panel review of a chambers judge’s decision is not a de novo determination. Where the chambers judge has made a discretionary decision, the decision is entitled to deference and the reviewing panel will not interfere absent legal error or misapprehension of material evidence: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association, 2019 ONCA 210, at para. 9. In addition, if the chambers judge committed an error in principle, the panel may intervene: Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, 138 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 21.
. SS & C Technologies Canada Corp. v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation

In SS & C Technologies Canada Corp. v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (Ont CA, 2021) three judges of the Court of Appeal heard a CJA 7(5) motion to set aside a single court of appeal judge's order (referred to as a panel review):
[6] It is well established that a panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association, 2019 ONCA 210, at para. 9. The reviewing panel asks whether the motion judge erred in principle in disposing of the motion: see Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, 138 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 21. Discretionary decisions of a single judge are, absent legal error or misapprehension of evidence, entitled to deference: Machado, at para. 9; Yaiguaje, at para. 20.
. Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale

In Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal considered their CJA 7(5) jurisdiction:
[18] On a panel review of the order of a single judge pursuant to CJA s. 7(5), the panel may interfere with the order if the chambers judge failed to identify the applicable principles, erred in principle or reached an unreasonable result: DeMarco v. Nicoletti, 2017 ONCA 417, at para. 3; Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, 138 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 21; Struik v. Dixie Lee Food Systems Ltd., 2018 ONCA 22, at paras. 5-6.



CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.