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 Court of Appeal for British Columbia refused to reopen a concluded appeal before entry of the formal order, finding no clear and compelling basis for doing so.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Neil Vernon Adams’s leave application for want of prosecution, citing delay, non-compliance with filing requirements, and an available re-opening remedy.
The court dismissed Mr. Singh’s application to re-open his appeal, finding no potential miscarriage of justice and ordering that his approval of the orders was unnecessary.
The court holds that it retains jurisdiction to permit re-opening of an appeal heard and decided on the merits until the formal order recording the disposition has been entered (i.e. until it is functus officio); the decision to re-open is discretionary and must be exercised in the interests of justice, with admission of fresh evidence governed by admissibility, cogency and due diligence; on the record before it the Crown's motion to quash the respondent's application to re-open is dismissed and the respondent may proceed with the re-opening application under a schedule set by the appeal mana…
Source excerpt
The Federal Court held the RAD unreasonably refused to reopen a dismissed appeal, failing to consider relevant delay evidence and natural justice concerns.
The RAD denied the re-opening application because the Applicant failed to establish that the dismissal for lack of perfection breached a principle of natural justice: the application was untimely, no persuasive evidence of denial of procedural fairness or of seriously inadequate representation was provided, and statutory timelines place responsibility on appellants to perfect appeals regardless of counsel availability.
Source excerpt
The RAD found the reopening application timely and that seeking reopening rather than judicial review was appropriate, but the appellant failed to demonstrate an arguable case or a breach of natural justice because no new corroborative evidence was submitted and the stated reasons for delay did not justify failure to perfect; accordingly the application to re-open was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
