|
Courts - Gaffes?. Talpade v. AMJ Campbell Company Toronto East
In Talpade v. AMJ Campbell Company Toronto East (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal rectifies an apparent court error in receiving party submisions and putting them before the court:[1] On December 18, 2025, we made an order dismissing the Moving Parties’ two motions, M56302 and M56305, pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and revoking their fee waivers for these proceedings. We noted in our reasons that no responding materials from the Moving Parties were before us.
[2] It has now come to our attention that the Moving Parties did submit responding materials to the court by email on October 14, 2025. However, these materials were not placed before the panel, and we made our order without having seen them.
[3] In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the interests of justice require that our order be set aside, and the matter remitted for consideration by a different panel. . Latif v. Kwinter
In Latif v. Kwinter (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court noted a - not apparently rare - logistical gaffe in court process:[1] At the direction of the panel, the Registrar asked the Moving Party to ensure his materials were in Case Centre, since none of his materials had been uploaded when the panel initially sought to review this motion. The Moving Party wrote to the court expressing concern about this request, since his materials had already been provided to the court, and this had been confirmed in an endorsement from a case management judge.
[2] It is a normal and ordinary part of court operations that materials may not reach the panel hearing a matter, and it is for the panel to address this when it arises. The panel may request assistance from the parties to ensure that the panel has all the necessary materials before rendering its decision, and it is expected that parties will cooperate with any such request made by the panel. In this instance, once the court heard back from the Moving Party, staff was directed to make the motion materials available in Case Centre, following which the panel reviewed the motion materials before rendering this decision. . Dosu v. Human Rights of Ontario; Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
In Dosu v. Human Rights of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2025) and in Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court decided the same case differently in separate proceedings - one day apart. Each proceeding involved two motions to intervene by public interest groups in a "judicial review application of the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario". 'It' was heard separately by single-judge panels, with one denying both and one granted both.
My best guess (apologies if otherwise) is that the same case was designated to two different single judges of the Divisional Court, likely electronically and at roughly the same time - and then separately released unbeknownst to each other, a day apart.
|
