The Supreme Court held that delay caused by a co-accused’s counsel in a joint trial can be a discrete exceptional circumstance under s. 11(b), so the stay was set aside.
The Court of Appeal upheld an order striking an appellant’s family-law application for prolonged non-disclosure, finding the remedy justified under Rule 1(8).
The case management judge did not err in principle or fact and did not fail to exercise discretion judicially in requiring the appellants to make submissions themselves; with time to prepare, detailed written materials already filed, allowance for joint submissions and supplementation, and the ability for Ms. Abbott to speak for Mr. Abbott if required, the judge's decision was fair and within discretion, so the appeal is dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed: the Court held the appeal judge did not err — case management ordered without oral argument did not breach procedural fairness given inherent jurisdiction and rules; additional evidence was irrelevant and not admitted; no reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict established; the record was complete; amendments made were limited to clerical corrections; no palpable and overriding errors were shown. Costs awarded to respondent under Column 3.
In Nova Scotia interlocutory procedural orders are not automatically subject to res judicata; however, a second motion to revisit consolidation may proceed only on judicial discretion and where the moving party shows a material change in circumstances or new evidence that seriously justifies reconsideration; Rule 37.05 permits severing parts of a proceeding including previously consolidated actions when that threshold is met; Omega failed to meet the threshold and the application to unwind consolidation was an abuse of process and therefore dismissed with costs.
The Court granted the adjournment and extension because proceeding without the respondent's factum was not in the interests of justice given a bona fide explanation for delay and the unilateral setting of the hearing; it reinstated the jurisdictional appeal because it raised arguable issues and overlapped materially with the other appeal, and ordered the appeals heard together with scheduled filing deadlines and a one-day hearing on June 26, 2026.
Leave to appeal was denied because the appellants failed to raise an arguable issue; the contested scheduling decision falls within the broad discretion of the case management judge and did not demonstrate a reviewable error warranting further appeal.
Perry demonstrated an inability to focus on the real issues, repeatedly failed to comply with timelines, and persistently commenced and continued vexatious proceedings by bringing prolix, repetitive and unsupported allegations of fraud and misconduct; accordingly a s.22 order was warranted to prevent further abuse of this Court's process, with specified leave conditions and narrow exceptions.
Given the exceptional volume and complexity of the record and the number of issues to be argued, but mindful that factums must remain concise and the extension must be proportionate, the court exercised its case management discretion to permit a measured extension and granted leave to file a factum not exceeding 90 pages, with specific filing deadlines and reciprocal limits for the respondent and reply factum.
The Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over the alleged conduct of provincial court officials absent a federal statutory grant; the notices of application implicated matters beyond the Federal Court's jurisdiction and were properly removable under rule 74, which permits removal at any time subject to providing parties an opportunity to be heard; therefore the appeals seeking to set aside the removal orders are dismissed.