Ontario civil | Appeal
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Judge not personally involved in any circumstances of case
Defendant brought motion for leave to appeal three interlocutory decisions. Plaintiff sued defendant for defamation. Defendant’s motion to compel university’s witnesses to answer questions and produce documents on grounds that judge demonstrated reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed. Case management judge refused to set down defendant’s motion to set aside judge’s decision. Defendant’s motion concerning refusal of plaintiff’s witnesses to answer questions and produce documents was dismissed. Defendant applied for extension of time to seek leave to appeal. Leave to appeal refused. It was in interests of justice that allegation of bias be considered. Extension of time was granted. However, this was not case that could possibly give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias. Judge was not personally involved in any of circumstances of case. There was nothing in judge’s conduct that suggested that he favoured university. There was no problem with case management judge’s refusing to set down motion that was entirely void of merit. Proposed appeal did not involve matters of importance. There was no reason to doubt correctness of orders.
St. Lewis v. Rancourt (Nov. 29, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Annis J., File No. 11-51657) 222 A.C.W.S. (3d) 578.
Judge not personally involved in any circumstances of case
Defendant brought motion for leave to appeal three interlocutory decisions. Plaintiff sued defendant for defamation. Defendant’s motion to compel university’s witnesses to answer questions and produce documents on grounds that judge demonstrated reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed. Case management judge refused to set down defendant’s motion to set aside judge’s decision. Defendant’s motion concerning refusal of plaintiff’s witnesses to answer questions and produce documents was dismissed. Defendant applied for extension of time to seek leave to appeal. Leave to appeal refused. It was in interests of justice that allegation of bias be considered. Extension of time was granted. However, this was not case that could possibly give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias. Judge was not personally involved in any of circumstances of case. There was nothing in judge’s conduct that suggested that he favoured university. There was no problem with case management judge’s refusing to set down motion that was entirely void of merit. Proposed appeal did not involve matters of importance. There was no reason to doubt correctness of orders.
St. Lewis v. Rancourt (Nov. 29, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Annis J., File No. 11-51657) 222 A.C.W.S. (3d) 578.
