Jeffs v. Freedom TV Inc.

Jeffs v. Freedom TV Inc.

The motion judge did not err: the appellants presented no satisfactory explanation for the delay, Rule 11.02 was inapplicable, and given the defendants' extensive delays and non-compliance with prior orders striking their pleadings was appropriate; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded.

Citation
2009 ONCA 774
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Janice Jeffs; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (applicant): Freedom TV Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (applicant): Freedom Studios Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (applicant): Aaron Goldman; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): Janice Jeffs; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): John Jeffs; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): Clinton Jeffs; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): TMGM Leasing
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Orders of Justice Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice Dated February 26, 2009 (motion Judge's Orders Under Review)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Rule 11.02, Striking Pleadings, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Setting Aside Orders Rule 11.02 Striking Pleadings Delay in Prosecution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janice Jeffs

Plaintiff (respondent)

Freedom TV Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (applicant)

Freedom Studios Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (applicant)

Aaron Goldman

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (applicant)

Janice Jeffs

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

John Jeffs

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

Clinton Jeffs

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

TMGM Leasing

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Orders of Justice Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice Dated February 26, 2009 (motion Judge's Orders Under Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to set aside the order of Justice Boyko
  2. 2 Whether Rule 11.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied
  3. 3 Whether striking the defendants' pleadings for non-compliance was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge did not err: the appellants presented no satisfactory explanation for the delay, Rule 11.02 was inapplicable, and given the defendants' extensive delays and non-compliance with prior orders striking their pleadings was appropriate; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Motion judge's refusal to set aside Justice Boyko's order upheld