Universal Am-Can v. Tornorth Holdings,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Blair, R.S.J., Gravely and Epstein, JJ.
• Citation: (2003), 177 O.A.C. 297 (DC)
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Date: 06 October 2003

Universal Am-Can v. Tornorth Holdings (2003), 177 O.A.C. 297 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.060

Universal Am-Can Ltd. (appellant) v. Tornorth Holdings Ltd. and the Corporation of The City of Brampton (respondents)

(754/02)

Indexed As: Universal Am-Can Ltd. v. Tornorth Holdings Ltd. et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Blair, R.S.J., Gravely and Epstein, JJ.

October 6, 2003.

Summary:

The Ontario Municipal Board imposed a substantial cost award on Universal after a hearing on a planning issue. Universal sought leave to appeal.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Carn­wath, J., refused leave to appeal. Universal sought to set aside the refusal of leave to appeal.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

Courts - Topic 7507

Provincial courts - Ontario - Divisional court - Jurisdiction - Respecting review of decision of single judge - A party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, seeking to set aside a decision denying leave to appeal made by a single judge of the Divisional Court - The On­tario Divisional Court stated that the "gen­eral principle of law is that there is no right to appeal from a decision refusing to grant leave to appeal. This principle is important to protect the integrity of the leave to appeal process as a straining de­vice .... The law is clear that such a motion can only be granted in the rarest of cir­cumstances and only when the Judge re­fusing to grant leave to appeal has declined jurisdiction." - See paragraphs 1 to 3.

Courts - Topic 7515

Provincial courts - Ontario - Divisional court - Jurisdiction - Leave to appeal to divisional court - [See Courts - Topic 7507 ].

Practice - Topic 8887

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Appeal from grant or denial of application for leave - [See Courts - Topic 7507 ].

Cases Noticed:

Millcraft Investment Corp. et al. v. Re­gional Assessment Commissioner, Re­gion No. 3 et al. (2000), 131 O.A.C. 1; 46 O.R.(3d) 685 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 3].

Hillmond Investments Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1996), 91 O.A.C. 54; 29 O.R.(3d) 612 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Denison Mines Ltd. v. Ontario Hydro (2001), 150 O.A.C. 387; 56 O.R.(3d) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Bryan Finlay, Q.C. and Ronald S. Sleight­holm, for the appellant;

Timothy J. Hill and Patricia Foran, for the respondents.

This motion was heard on October 6, 2003, before Blair, R.S.J., Gravely and Epstein, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. Blair, R.S.J., delivered the following oral reasons for judgment on that date.