Masters, Assessment and Other Officers. Isaac v. Law Society of Ontario
In Isaac v. Law Society of Ontario (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court considered the jurisdiction of a case management judge:
 Mr. Isaac argues that Justice Corbett, as a case management judge, had no jurisdiction to dismiss his appeal without a formal motion from the LSO. We disagree.
 The starting point of the analysis must be Justice Corbett’s jurisdiction to make orders setting deadlines for Mr. Isaac to file materials on an appeal at a case conference. We find that Justice Corbett had jurisdiction to do so based on either the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 or the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction to control its own processes.
 Rule 77.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedures states that a case conference judge may establish or amend a timetable. A case management judge can also make orders, impose terms and give directions that are necessary to manage a case. The powers of a case management judge apply to actions and applications: Rule 77.02.
 The Rules do not specifically deal with case management of appeals to the Divisional Court. However, Rule 1.04(2) states that where matters are not provided for in the rules, “the practice shall be determined by analogy to them.” Applying the principles in Rule 77.04 by analogy, Justice Corbett was entitled to make directions about the timeline for filing materials on this appeal.
 In any event, Justice Corbett had jurisdiction to make scheduling orders pursuant to this Court’s jurisdiction to control its own process. As a statutory court, the Divisional Court does not have the inherent jurisdiction vested in the Superior Court of Justice. Nonetheless, the Court has implicit power to control its own process. The jurisdiction of the court to control its own process empowers the court to make any order that is reasonably necessary to perform its intended function: Sgrignuoli v. Sgrignuoli, 2017 ONSC 65, at para. 36, Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at para. 27, R. v. 9746499 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, at para. 70.