Lee v. McGhee

Lee v. McGhee

The court declined to quash the appeal under s.134(3) CJA because quashing an appeal as manifestly devoid of merit ordinarily requires full argument on all grounds raised; no reason existed to depart from that principle, so the motion to quash was dismissed and the appeal was set for hearing.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 ONCA 997
Parties
Respondent (responding Party): Byeongheon Lee; Moving Party (respondents): Doc McGhee, McGhee Entertainment, Capital Security and Investigations, Canadian Tire Centre, Gene Simmons and Kiss
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Quash Appeal Under S.134(3) CJA Dismissed; Appeal Scheduled for Hearing
Outcome
Motion to quash dismissed; appeal scheduled for hearing.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Disclose a Cause of Action, Motion to Quash Appeal as Devoid of Merit, Application of Ontario Human Rights Code S.46.1(2), Courts of Justice Act S.134(3)
Source Language
english
Civil Human Rights Procedural Law Appeal Discrimination Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Disclose a Cause of Action Motion to Quash Appeal as Devoid of Merit Application of Ontario Human Rights Code S.46.1(2) +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Byeongheon Lee

Respondent (responding Party)

Doc McGhee, McGhee Entertainment, Capital Security and Investigations, Canadian Tire Centre, Gene Simmons and Kiss

Moving Party (respondents)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion to Quash Appeal Under S.134(3) CJA Dismissed; Appeal Scheduled for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action alleging only infringement of a right under Part 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code may proceed
  2. 2 Whether the appeal is manifestly devoid of merit such that it should be quashed under s.134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to quash the appeal under s.134(3) CJA because quashing an appeal as manifestly devoid of merit ordinarily requires full argument on all grounds raised; no reason existed to depart from that principle, so the motion to quash was dismissed and the appeal was set for hearing.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash dismissed; appeal scheduled for hearing.

Orders

  • Motion to quash the appeal dismissed
  • Appeal set for hearing on February 8, 2018 for one hour