Ontario Civil


Leave to appeal
Court not authorized to dispense with statutory leave requirement

Judgment dealt with custody, access and child support. Responding party was declared to be vexatious litigant. Responding party’s application to set aside order was dismissed and further order was made declaring responding party to be vexatious litigant. Responding party was denied leave to continue appeal. Responding party court should dispense with compliance with requirement that he obtain leave. Moving party sought order dismissing responding party’s appeal of judgment. Motion granted. Responding party’s appeal was quashed. Rule 2.03 of Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.) permitted court to dispense with compliance with Rules, but did not authorize court to dispense with compliance with statutory leave requirement set out in s. 140 of Courts of Justice Act (Ont.).

Vermette v. Nassr (Sep. 6, 2016, Ont. C.A., K. Feldman J.A., Janet Simmons J.A., and P. Lauwers J.A., CA M46599 (C59706)) 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 463.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?