Judgement (Sufficient Reasons): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Small Claims ==[http://canlii.ca/t/j5jlr Ontario Football Conference v. Brampton Minor Football Association, 2020 ONSC 1061 (CanLII)]==") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/j5jlr Ontario Football Conference v. Brampton Minor Football Association, 2020 ONSC 1061 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/j5jlr Ontario Football Conference v. Brampton Minor Football Association, 2020 ONSC 1061 (CanLII)]== | ||
The Nature of this Proceeding | |||
[1] The Defendant, Brampton Minor Football Association (“BMFA”), appeals to the Divisional Court from the Judgment (a final order) of the Honourable Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court dated May 22, 2018. | |||
[2] Although the Notice of Appeal seeks other relief, in oral argument at Brampton on February 14, 2020, counsel for the BMFA clarified that the remedy sought is a new trial. | |||
[3] This is a relatively rare instance where the other two parties to the litigation, (i) the Plaintiff, Ontario Football Conference (“OFC”), and (ii) the added Defendant or Third Party, Ian Smith (“Smith), also agree that the Judgment cannot stand, though for different reasons than those advanced by the BMFA. The OFC and Smith have both cross-appealed on the issue of costs in the Court below. | |||
Revision as of 12:41, 3 March 2020
Ontario Football Conference v. Brampton Minor Football Association, 2020 ONSC 1061 (CanLII)
The Nature of this Proceeding
[1] The Defendant, Brampton Minor Football Association (“BMFA”), appeals to the Divisional Court from the Judgment (a final order) of the Honourable Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court dated May 22, 2018.
[2] Although the Notice of Appeal seeks other relief, in oral argument at Brampton on February 14, 2020, counsel for the BMFA clarified that the remedy sought is a new trial.
[3] This is a relatively rare instance where the other two parties to the litigation, (i) the Plaintiff, Ontario Football Conference (“OFC”), and (ii) the added Defendant or Third Party, Ian Smith (“Smith), also agree that the Judgment cannot stand, though for different reasons than those advanced by the BMFA. The OFC and Smith have both cross-appealed on the issue of costs in the Court below.
