Hare v. Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers, (1984) 4 O.A.C. 104 (DC)
|Court:||Superior Court of Justice of Ontario|
|Case Date:||June 12, 1984|
|Citations:||(1984), 4 O.A.C. 104 (DC)|
Hare v. Reg. of Real Estate (1984), 4 O.A.C. 104 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
Hare v. Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers
Indexed As: Hare v. Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers
Ontario Divisional Court
June 12, 1984.
The Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers suspended a real estate salesman's licence. The salesman appealed. The Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, in an oral decision delivered September 21, 1983. The formal order was taken out on October 19, 1983. The Board's reasons were delivered on March 14, 1984. The Registrar issued a notice of appeal dated March 26, 1984. The salesman was not served with the notice personally, although his solicitor was served. The salesman gave notice of motion to quash the notice of appeal.
The Ontario Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the appeal, because the salesman was not personally served with the notice. The Divisional Court also opined that the time for appealing had expired.
Practice - Topic 2501
Service - Personal service of notice of appeal - On individuals - The Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers suspended a salesman's licence - The Appeal Tribunal reversed his decision - The Ontario Divisional Court quashed the Registrar's appeal, because he failed to serve notice of appeal on the salesman personally - The court held that service on the salesman's solicitor was inadequate in the circumstances - See paragraphs 7 to 10, 14.
Practice - Topic 9005
Appeals - Notice of appeal - Time limitations - Interpretation of - The Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal delivered its decision orally on September 21, 1983 - The formal order was taken out on October 19, 1983 - The Board's written reasons were delivered on March 14, 1984 - Rule 497b prescribed 15 days to appeal, from the date of the judgment appealed from - The Ontario Divisional Court opined that the time for appealing ran from the date the oral judgment was pronounced and that a notice of appeal dated March 26, 1984 was out of time - See paragraphs 11 to 12, 14.
Otaco Limited v. The Town of Orillia,  O.R. 37, appld. [para. 7].
Ex parte Saffery; In re Lambert (1877), 5 Ch. D. 365, appld. [para. 7].
Harder v. Hayter,  4 W.W.R. 765 (Alta. C.A.), not appld. [para. 10].
Lady De La Pole v. Dick (1885), 29 Ch. D. 351, not appld. [para. 10].
Re Permanent Investment Corp. and Ops. & Graham Twp.,  2 O.R. 13, consd. [para. 11].
Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 274, sect. 11(1) [para. 4].
Rules of Practice (Ont.), rule 201(1) [para. 9]; rule 497b [paras. 5, 14].
Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 484, sect. 17 [para. 13].
Hugh Rowan, Q.C., for the respondent (appellant);
M. Bader, for the applicant (respondent).
This motion was heard before Hollingworth, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, whose decision was released on June 12, 1984.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP