Gallos v. Toronto (City)
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Judge | Feldman, Juriansz and MacFarland, JJ.A. |
| Citation | 2014 ONCA 818,[2014] O.A.C. Uned. 755,[2014] O.A.C. Uned. 755 (CA) |
| Date | 20 November 2014 |
| Subject Matter | EVIDENCE,PRACTICE,COURTS |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
5 practice notes
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 17 ' 21)
...Abuse of Process, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43,s. 7(5), Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1.02, Gallos v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 818, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, Lochner ......
-
Damallie v. Ping
...stayed or dismissed a proceeding under rule 2.1: see e.g. Hoang v. Mann Engineering Ltd. , 2015 ONCA 838; and Gallos v. Toronto (City) , 2014 ONCA 818. I see nothing in those decisions to suggest that the matter cannot be brought to the court's attention by means of a motion such as th......
-
M.E. et al. v. HMTQ et al.
...was prohibited from bringing any further motions in the proceeding without leave of the court. See also Gallos v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 818. [34] The allegations reflected in M.E.’s Motion were dealt with by Schabas J. and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. M.E.’s Motion is clearly an att......
-
Hoang v Mann Engineering Ltd.: Court Of Appeal Invokes Rule 2.1 To Dismiss Frivolous Motion
...that the motion is not frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court: see for example, Gallos v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 818. This case does not fit within the very narrow jurisdiction of rule 59.06, but is one that on its face fits within rule The content of this......
Get Started for Free
4 cases
-
Gallos v Toronto (City)
...to file fresh evidence dismissed 2013 ONCA 553 ; Further application to re-open decision on appeal and to file fresh evidence dismissed 2014 ONCA 818; and c. Gallos v. City of Toronto, application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number M54551 (date......
-
Damallie v. Ping
...stayed or dismissed a proceeding under rule 2.1: see e.g. Hoang v. Mann Engineering Ltd. , 2015 ONCA 838; and Gallos v. Toronto (City) , 2014 ONCA 818. I see nothing in those decisions to suggest that the matter cannot be brought to the court's attention by means of a motion such as th......
-
M.E. et al. v. HMTQ et al.
...was prohibited from bringing any further motions in the proceeding without leave of the court. See also Gallos v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 818. [34] The allegations reflected in M.E.’s Motion were dealt with by Schabas J. and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. M.E.’s Motion is clearly an att......
-
Hoang v. Mann Engineering Ltd. et al.
...the motion is not frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court: see for example, Gallos v. Toronto (City) , 2014 ONCA 818. This case does not fit within the very narrow jurisdiction of rule 59.06, but is one that on its face fits within rule 2.1.02(1). Disposition ......
2 firm's commentaries
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 17 ' 21)
...Abuse of Process, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43,s. 7(5), Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1.02, Gallos v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 818, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, Lochner ......
-
Hoang v Mann Engineering Ltd.: Court Of Appeal Invokes Rule 2.1 To Dismiss Frivolous Motion
...that the motion is not frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court: see for example, Gallos v. Toronto (City), 2014 ONCA 818. This case does not fit within the very narrow jurisdiction of rule 59.06, but is one that on its face fits within rule The content of this......