v. Harikumar, 2016 ONSC 330 the Ontario Divisional Court
ruled that the Kruzick J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
correctly declined to exercise his jurisdiction to transfer
the plaintiff's appeal from the Divisional Court to the Ontario
Court of Appeal.
The plaintiff's action was dismissed by Myers J. on August
4, 2015. The plaintiff then appealed to the Divisional Court.
Kruzick J. held that the Divisional Court did not have jurisdiction
to hear the appeal pursuant to section 19(1) of the Courts of
Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. That is, the amount claimed
in damages – $15 million – far exceeded the Divisional
Court's monetary jurisdiction of $50,000. Since the Court of
Appeal, not the Divisional Court, was the correct venue for the
appeal, Kruzick J. dismissed the appeal.
The plaintiff then brought a motion to the Divisional Court to
vary or set aside Kruzick J.'s Order on the basis that Kruzick
J. had erred in failing to exercise his discretion to transfer
the appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the appellant had not
requested this relief in the Notice of Motion before the Divisional
Court, nor had he sought this relief before Kruzick J, despite
being aware of the jurisdictional problems. In light of these
facts, the Divisional Court saw no basis to set aside or vary the
Order and dismissed the motion.
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.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
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).