Singh v. Ontario
The purported notice of appeal did not constitute a valid notice as against the Crown defendants; no material justified extending time to file a proper notice and, independently, the appellant's submissions against the Crown defendants fail under s.7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, so the appeal is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C38670, M30910
- Parties
- Appellant: Ram Charan Singh; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario; Respondent: Jim Flaherty; Respondent: J. Raftery; Respondent: Kamla Tirbaynee
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 April 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Court of Appeal Appeal (endorsement)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Notice of Appeal, Extension of Time, Proceedings Against the Crown Act S.7(1), Costs, Jurisdiction
- 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
Ram Charan Singh
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Respondent
Jim Flaherty
Respondent
J. Raftery
Respondent
Kamla Tirbaynee
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Court of Appeal Appeal (endorsement)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a valid notice of appeal existed against the Crown defendants
- 2 Whether the court should extend time to file a proper notice of appeal
- 3 Whether the appellant's claims against Crown defendants are barred by s.7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act
Ratio Decidendi
The purported notice of appeal did not constitute a valid notice as against the Crown defendants; no material justified extending time to file a proper notice and, independently, the appellant's submissions against the Crown defendants fail under s.7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, so the appeal is without merit and relief is refused.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Singh v. Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-04-05 Docket numbers C38670, M30910 Judges Doherty, David H.; Moldaver, Michael James; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20040405 DOCKET: M30910-C38670 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: RAM CHARAN SINGH (Appellant) v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by THE MINISTER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM FLAHERTY, J. RAFTERY and KAMLA TIRBAYNEE (Respondents) BEFORE: DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: Patrick Di Monte for the appellant Lynne McArdle for the Crown respondent J. Stone for the respondent, Tirbaynee HEARD & ENDORSED: March 30, 2004 APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The only notice of appeal in existence was served and filed before the motion judge released his decision with respect to the "Crown" defendants. He dismissed the claim against the other defendant. This document could not constitute a notice of appeal as against the Crown defendants, even though it referred to all of the defendants, including the Crown defendants. [2] No steps have been taken to remedy this deficiency in almost two years despite timely notice by the Crown that it would take the position that there is no appeal against the Crown in existence. [3] No material has been filed that would justify an extension of the time to file a proper notice of appeal. In any event, we heard full argument on the merit of the appeal and are satisfied there is no merit. Counsel abandoned any argument against the disposition as it related to Raftery. We agree with the motion judge that the appellant's submissions as against the other Crown defendants cannot prevail in the light of s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. Consequently, even if we were inclined to relieve against the failure to file a valid notice of appeal, we would not do so as the appeal has no merit. It is not in the interests of justice to extend the time. [4] We have received the Crown's submissions on costs. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there should be no order as to costs.