Watto v. Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council
The motion judge did not err: the Rules require factums to be concise with a 30-page maximum and the appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify a 60-page factum, so the motion to review was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 683
- Parties
- Applicant (appellant): Muhammad Watto; Applicant (appellant): Professional Development and Legal Education Society; Applicant (appellant): Legal and Professional Education College Ltd.; Respondent: Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 September 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Motion for Review of Chambers Order
- Outcome
- Motion to review dismissed; order of the motion judge upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Factum Length, Rules of Civil Procedure, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Muhammad Watto
Applicant (appellant)
Professional Development and Legal Education Society
Applicant (appellant)
Legal and Professional Education College Ltd.
Applicant (appellant)
Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion for Review of Chambers Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing leave to file a 60-page factum
- 2 Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify exceeding the 30-page limit for factums
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded for the motion
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err: the Rules require factums to be concise with a 30-page maximum and the appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify a 60-page factum, so the motion to review was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Motion to review dismissed; order of the motion judge upheld.
Orders
- Motion to review dismissed
- No costs of this motion
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Watto v. Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-09-03 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 683 Docket numbers C66645, M50560 Judges Lauwers, Peter D.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Roberts, Lois B. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Watto v. Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, 2019 ONCA 683 DATE: 20190903 DOCKET: M50560 (C66645) Lauwers, van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A. BETWEEN Muhammad Watto, Professional Development and Legal Education Society and Legal and Professional Education College Ltd. Applicants (Appellants) and Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council Respondent AND BETWEEN Muhammad Watto Applicant (Appellant) and Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council Respondent Muhammad Watto, in person Glynnis Hawe, for the respondent Heard and delivered orally: August 29, 2019 On motion for review of the chambers order of a single judge of this court, dated June 18, 2019. ORAL ENDORSEMENT [1] The motion judge did not err in dismissing the appellants’ request to file a 60-page factum. The Rules of Civil Procedure require parties’ factums to be concise statements of fact, law and argument. The maximum length is 30 pages. It is only in exceptional circumstances, that are not present here, that this court will permit a longer factum to be filed. [2] In our view, the appellants should be able to deal with the relevant issues on this appeal in a 30-page factum. In particular, the appellants’ statement of the facts is not concise and could be considerably shortened. [3] Accordingly, we dismiss the appellants’ motion to review the motion judge’s order. [4] As the respondent did not claim its costs of this motion, we order that there be no costs of this motion. “P. Lauwers J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.”