The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that transcripts were required for this fact-specific family appeal and gave the appellant a short deadline to prove transcript ordering.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to include motion transcripts in the appeal record and extended time to perfect the appeal after an unsworn affidavit issue.
The extension to perfect was denied as moot because transcripts are required and the perfection deadline has not yet started; dismissal for delay was refused because the appellant, a self‑represented litigant, was likely confused about transcript obligations, the delay was short and not prejudicial, and a single judge likely lacks jurisdiction to finally dismiss the appeal; the court directed the appellant to either file proof by March 31, 2025 that she has ordered all required transcripts or to bring a Rule 61.09(4) motion for relief from compliance, failing which the respondent may move to…
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a study permit refusal, finding the officer’s reasons on custodianship, study plan, transcripts, and finances were reasonable.
Leave to appeal was refused because the application was timely but failed to raise any arguable case that the General Division committed a reviewable error (no procedural unfairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, no error of law or fact identified) and the applicant did not present new evidence not available to the General Division.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Tan’s applications for fee relief, more time, alternate service, and filing or formatting exemptions, finding the appeal bound to fail.
The Court of Appeal upheld the registrar’s refusal to permit limited transcripts, finding the appeal issues were fact-rich and required the full trial record.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to vary a chambers order refusing more time to file the appeal record and transcripts, and to challenge abandonment.