Sopinka J.
Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an application under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. S‑26 (as amended by S.C. 1994, c. 44, s. 101), and Rule 27 of our rules for an interim stay pending leave to appeal. This relief was previously refused by Weiler J.A. who concluded that there was no serious question to be tried: (1996), 88 O.A.C. 124. The dismissal of the application was without prejudice to the renewal of the application before a justice of this Court.
In enacting s. 65.1(1) to give judges of the court appealed from jurisdiction to grant a stay, Parliament did not intend that successive applications be routinely permitted. The purpose of the amendment was to enable litigants to apply to the court that had recently dealt with the matter. Often the court appealed from is more conveniently located so as to permit the matter to be dealt with more expeditiously. It is only in special circumstances that successive applications to a judge of the court appealed from and a judge of this Court should be permitted.
In this case, Weiler J.A. dismissed without prejudice to this application being renewed in this Court. There are no special circumstances that would warrant a re‑examination by me of the decision of Weiler J.A. that there is no serious question to be tried. My interpretation of the reason for the dismissal without prejudice is that Weiler J.A. had in mind that if this Court granted leave then there would be good reason to reconsider her finding that no serious question is presented in the proposed appeal. I would therefore dismiss the application. The application for leave will be expedited.* The application for a stay may be renewed before the panel hearing the application for leave. I make no order as to costs.
Footnotes
- [1] * Application for leave to appeal refused, [1996] 1 S.C.R. vi.
Cases cited
- 88 O.A.C. 124 88 O.A.C. 124 ¶ 1
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Supreme Court Act