Hi everyone. This week's instalment of Blaney's
Ontario Court of Appeal summaries includes decisions covering the
following topics: Child Welfare, Family Law (the variation of
spousal support where child support has ceased), Leave to Appeal
Costs Orders where the costs ordered were set off against other
debts (leave not required), and Extension of Time to Appeal
(because of a change in the law after the appeal period has expired
but before the order was issued and entered). There are also
several short endorsements covering issues such as malicious
prosecution, contempt, extension of time to perfect appeal and
summary judgment, one case in the context of limitation periods and
the other in the context of whether admissions made by counsel in
argument or on discovery are sufficient to grant summary
I find the issue raised in the Leighton v Best case
interesting. That was a case where the law changed after the
appeal period expired but before the order was issued and entered
and after the judge who made the order refused to reconsider it on
the basis of the change in the law. Even though there was no
crystallized intention to appeal before the appeal period expired,
leave was granted to extend the time to appeal on the basis of the
change in the law. The questions that came to my mind in
reading the decision were questions like, How long after the appeal
period expires can you seek leave to extend the time to appeal
because of a change in the law? Does the order have to remain
unsettled at the time the law changed in order to be able to extend
the appeal period? If not, can you extend the time to appeal
if the law changed one month, one year or five years after the
appeal period expired? That can't be the case because
otherwise there would never be finality to any decision. But
where is the line drawn? Maybe there are answers to some or
all of these questions. Unfortunately, these questions were
not canvassed in the Leighton v Best decision.
Wishing everyone a nice weekend.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).