Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC)
Date: 2005-01-13
Docket: 20391/05
URL:
CanLII - 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC)
Citation: Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC),
Many people come to this site with "urgent" or "emergency" situations. The above case law is a great summary of what defines an "emergency" for which a motion can be brought forward before a case conference.
Many come that the situation in their home is so dire that they have to have exclusive possession and that it is an "emergency". More than likely, it is not and this is how the court may determine so:
More on the matter of "urgency" can be found here:
Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC)
Date: 2007-11-01
Docket: 4740/05
URL:
CanLII - 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC)
Citation: Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC)
This case law should be considered by any litigant and their counsel before bringing an "urgent" matter to court before case conference.
In light of this case law, any barrister and solicitor who brings a motion on an urgent (emergency) basis before the court that does not meet this criteria in my personal opinion should have costs awarded against them. It should fall on the lawyer representing their client on the "urgent" request to insure that their client's evidence brought forward meets the criteria.
Furthermore, Legal Aid Ontario should be responsible for financing and funding litigants who bring "urgent" matters prior to case conference on an "emergency" basis. LOA lacks the governance structure to insure that public funds are not wasted on frivolous matters and should be accountable to both parties to the litigation for how public funds are used and possibly abused.
Good Luck!
Tayken