Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed an extension and leave application, holding the proposed appeal from an interlocutory order had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Court of Appeal addressed jurisdiction, abuse of process, and vagueness in extradition proceedings, ultimately allowing the appeal by majority and setting aside the invalidity declaration.
The court held that the Securities Act leave petition and certification motion should be heard together in one combined hearing to reduce delay and avoid separate appeal processes.
The appeal discloses no realistic prospect of success because IRPA expressly precludes appeals to this Court from interlocutory orders absent a certified question and associate judge orders are to be appealed to a Federal Court judge under the Rules; therefore the notice of appeal was properly removed under Rule 74 and the Court's plenary powers.
Source excerpt
Because both appeals were argued and decided on their merits and the Court issued Orders based on an assessment of the merits, the Court had exhausted its jurisdiction (was functus officio) and therefore could not re-open the appeals; the motion to review the Chambers Orders was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court rejected the appellants' contention that their settlement offer precluded costs and rejected the respondents' abuse of process argument; the respondents (The Estate of YYY and XXX) were entitled to costs in the sum of $30,000 all-inclusive, including the motion to quash.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the interlocutory order denying the contempt motion; such appeals lie to the Divisional Court with leave, so the appeal was transmitted.
Source excerpt
The application was late but time to file was extended due to a reasonable explanation; however the Appeal Division will not hear an interlocutory appeal before the General Division concludes absent exceptional circumstances, and none exist here, so the application is dismissed as premature.
Source excerpt
Certiorari and mandamus were properly denied because the complained-of errors did not amount to a jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice; the trial judge lawfully determined the disclosure regime and exercised jurisdiction, and allowing interlocutory review would undermine the prohibition on interlocutory appeals and impede timely justice.
Source excerpt
Absent exceptional circumstances, the Appeal Division will not hear appeals of interlocutory General Division decisions while the General Division process is ongoing; because no exceptional circumstances existed here, the application to appeal the interlocutory decision was premature and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
