Willmot v. Ontario
The motion judge correctly concluded the appellant's pleading on its face met the test for dismissal under r.2.1.01; any issue about r.19.02(1) and leave did not prevent the r.2.1.01 application and, even if leave was required, it would have been granted; consequently the appeal fails and the motion judge's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 63
- Parties
- Appellant: Julie Willmot; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario; Respondent: Law Society of Upper Canada also known as the Law Society of Ontario; Respondent: City of Quinte West
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 January 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (motion Under R.2.1.01)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Rule 2.1.01 (dismissal), Rule 19.02(1) (default), Leave to Act After Default, Fresh Evidence, 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
Julie Willmot
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Respondent
Law Society of Upper Canada also known as the Law Society of Ontario
Respondent
City of Quinte West
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (motion Under R.2.1.01)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the action on its face met the test for dismissal under r.2.1.01
- 2 Whether a respondent noted in default was precluded by r.19.02(1) from taking further steps without leave
- 3 Whether leave would have been required and, if so, whether it would have been granted
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge correctly concluded the appellant's pleading on its face met the test for dismissal under r.2.1.01; any issue about r.19.02(1) and leave did not prevent the r.2.1.01 application and, even if leave was required, it would have been granted; consequently the appeal fails and the motion judge's dismissal is upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Fresh evidence application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Willmot v. Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-01-29 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 63 Docket numbers C65601 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Benotto, Mary Lou Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Willmot v. Ontario, 2019 ONCA 63 DATE: 20190128 DOCKET: C65601 Rouleau, van Rensburg and Benotto JJ.A. BETWEEN Julie Willmot Appellant and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, the Law Society of Upper Canada also known as the Law Society of Ontario and the City of Quinte West Respondents Julie Willmot, in person Sandra Barton and Natasha Carew, for the Law Society of Ontario Tanya Jemec, for the Attorney General of Ontario Heard: January 24, 2019 On appeal from the order of Justice W. Matheson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 28, 2018. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The motion judge properly considered the matter on the basis of the appellant’s pleading and concluded that her action on its face meets the test for dismissal under rule 2.1.01. [2] The matter was brought to the court under r. 2.1.01(6) after the respondent Her Majesty the Queen was noted in default. The appellant asserts that the respondent Her Majesty the Queen was precluded by r. 19.02(1), after having been noted in default, from taking any further step in the action without leave, which prevented the r. 2.1.01(6) request. [3] The motion judge was aware that the respondent Her Majesty the Queen had been noted in default. Even if we accept that leave was required, it is obvious leave would have been granted, as this is a clear case for the application of r. 2.1.01. [4] The appeal is dismissed. We also dismiss the fresh evidence application as the fresh evidence would have no impact on the outcome. [5] There will be no costs of the appeal.