PDM Entertainment Inc. v. Three Pines Creations Inc., 2015 ONCA 488:
[32] I begin with an important contextual point. After the two applications were filed, they were scheduled for hearing on an urgent basis on the first available date that permitted time for responding materials, examinations and facta. In its Notice of Application, PDM said, under a separate heading titled “Urgency”:
(eee) [I]t is imperative that the Application be heard on an urgent basis. PDM has funding applications that are presently being considered and, if there is uncertainty as to the ownership of the rights, the funding applications may have to be withdrawn[.]
[33] Moreover, at the conclusion of argument on January 22, 2015, PDM’s counsel advised the application judge of the urgency of the matter and requested that, if possible, a decision be issued quickly. There is no indication that the appellants took issue with that request or with PDM’s justification therefor. The application judge released his decision the next morning, on January 23, 2015. He gave the parties what he had been asked for: an early hearing and an immediate decision.
[34] In F.H. v. McDougall, at para. 98, Rothstein J. summarized the rationales underlying the duty to give adequate reasons:
(1) to justify and explain the result;
(2) to tell the losing party why he or she lost;
(3) to provide for informed consideration of the grounds of appeal; and
(4) to satisfy the public that justice has been done.
[35] In my view, the application judge’s reasons in this case meet this standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment