Babineau v. Ontario et al.; Babineau v. Ontario, Executive Council of Ontario, and Canada, (1984) 3 O.A.C. 226 (DC)
|Judge:||Southey, Saunders and Smith, JJ.|
|Court:||Superior Court of Justice of Ontario|
|Case Date:||May 16, 1984|
|Citations:||(1984), 3 O.A.C. 226 (DC)|
Babineau v. Ont. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 226 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
Babineau v. Ontario Province of et al.
Babineau v. Ontario, Province of, Executive Council of Ontario, McArdle and Canada, Government of
Indexed As: Babineau v. Ontario et al.; Babineau v. Ontario, Executive Council of Ontario, and Canada
Ontario Divisional Court
Southey, Saunders and Smith, JJ.
June 1, 1984.
The Province of Ontario, by two orders in council, appointed two men as temporary Ombudsmen. The applicant sought judicial review respecting the appointments. Before the matter was heard neither man was acting as temporary Ombudsman.
The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground that the question was now academic.
Courts - Topic 2286
Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters - The Ontario Divisional Court held that a court should not hear a case where the substratum of the litigation has disappeared i.e. where the point involved in the matter is no longer of any practical importance - The court held that in the absence of any practical benefit to anyone from the decision, the court ought not to hear even important questions of law - See paragraphs 3 to 6.
The King ex. rel. Tolfree v. Clark et al.,  1 D.L.R. 495 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 4].
G.F. Babineau, in person;
T.H. Wickett, Q.C., for the respondent.
These applications were heard before Southey, Saunders and Smith, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on May 16, 1984. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by Southey, J., and released on June 1, 1984.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP