Granted
Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Generoux, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41858)
On May 1, 2020, the Regulations Amending the Regulations Designating Firearms, Weapons, Weapon Components or Parts, Accessories, Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96, came into force. The new regulations prohibited more than 1,500 firearms that were previously legal to possess and use by licenced firearms holders. The regulations were challenged by licenced firearms owners, hunters, sport shooters, shooting clubs, business owners, and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. Their applications for J.R. were heard together. The Fed. Court dismissed the applications. Four appeals from the Fed. Court’s judgment were consolidated and heard together. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeals. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted. This appeal will be heard with Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41859), with Michael John Doherty, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41860), and with Jennifer Eichenberg, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41861).”
Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41859)
Similar summary to that above. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause. This appeal will be heard with Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41858), with Michael John Doherty, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41860), and with Jennifer Eichenberg, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41861).”
Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Doherty, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41860)
Similar summary to that above. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause. This appeal will be heard with Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41858), with Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41859), and with Jennifer Eichenberg, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41861).”
Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Eichenberg, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41861)
Similar summary to that above. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause. This appeal will be heard with Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41858), with Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41859), and with Michael John Doherty, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (41860).”
Dismissed
Class Actions: Jurisdiction; Cryptocurrency
Shirodkar v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al., 2025 ONCA 298 (41875)
The plaintiff, Shantanu Shirodkar, sought to institute a class action against the Respondents, Coinbase Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries Coinbase Inc., Coinbase Canada Inc., and Coinbase Europe Limited. Coinbase was an online cryptocurrency trading platform. The plaintiff alleged the Respondents violated the Ontario Securities Act and other provincial securities laws by failing to comply with the disclosure and registration requirements on securities dealers. He sought certification of the claim on behalf of all persons in Canada who entered into cryptocurrency rights agreements or conducted token transactions with the Respondents between October 8, 2019, and the date of certification. The Respondents moved to dismiss or stay the action on jurisdictional grounds. The judge granted the Respondents’ motion. She concluded the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims against the non-Canadian Respondents and the action against them should be dismissed. Although the court had jurisdiction over Coinbase Canada, the judge determined it was preferable for the plaintiff’s claims to be decided in Ireland. She therefore stayed the remaining action against Coinbase Canada. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Class Actions: Airlines
WestJet v. Gauthier, et al., 2025 BCCA 134 (41887)
Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Reaume filed lawsuits against WestJet and Air Canada. They argued, in part, due to their disability, they must pay for an additional seat on international flights for their companions. They also argued the airlines’ contracts with customers violate provincial consumer protection laws, are unfair, void, and unenforceable under common law. They seek various remedies, including damages for additional fees paid, a declaration of unjust enrichment due to the receipt of additional fares, the cancellation of any contracts requiring additional fees, and an injunction. They applied for certification of their actions as a class action. WestJet has sought an order dismissing the claim on the grounds the Canadian Transportation Agency has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim or the court should decline jurisdiction because the claim is bound to fail under s.31(2) of the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (which permits it to charge for per-seat fares for international travel). The B.C.S.C. dismissed WestJet’s application. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the appeal. It concluded it is not obvious the B.C.S.C. lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the application. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Class Actions: Credit Card Processing
Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), et al. v. Royer, et al., 2025 QCCA 217 (41212)
In March 2019, a cyber incident occurred whereby a former employee of the Applicant Amazon group gained unauthorized and unlawful entry to the Applicant Capital One group’s credit card application processing system and accessed certain types of personal information relating to people who had applied for or were customers of certain Capital One credit card products. The Respondent, Mr. Royer, applied to institute a class proceeding before Québec courts, alleging damage suffered as a result of the incident. The Superior Court granted the authorization application, and the Qué. C.A. allowed his appeal seeking to broaden the scope of compensable loss claimed to include moral damages. At the same time, the Qué. C.A. dismissed the Capital One group and Amazon group’s incidental appeals which sought to dismiss the authorization application on the basis of deficiencies in his pleadings. “The applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed.”
Creditor-Debtor: Loans
Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 2025 QCCA 977 (42038)
The parties agreed on a loan contract. The loan was secured by a mortgage registered against the debtor’s property. The contract provided that the term of the loan was one of two eventualities: (1) the sale of the property or (2) agreement by a financial institution to grant a traditional loan to the debtor. Neither occurred. The creditor sought repayment of the loan several times, but the debtor refused. The creditor commenced proceedings against the debtor. In its first judgment, the Québec Superior Court fixed the term of the loan contract pursuant to art. 1512 of the Civil Code of Québec, and ordered the debtor to repay the loan with interest. The debtor did not repay the loan, and the creditor initiated proceedings for forced execution. In its second judgment, the Superior Court dismissed the debtor’s opposition to the seizure of his property in execution. In its third judgment, the Superior Court dismissed an application for revocation of its first two judgments. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Attempted Murder; Counselling
Jaggernauth v. R., 2025 ONCA 579 (42034)
A woman was shot with a crossbow by an assailant who was never identified or apprehended. Her ex-boyfriend, Mr. Jaggernauth, was charged with attempted murder and counselling to commit murder. The Crown’s case was circumstantial. The evidence included police officers’ testimony describing observations of Mr. Jaggernauth before he was informed of the offence. Police officers opined they considered Mr. Jaggernauth’s conduct to be counter-surveillance efforts. Mr. Jaggernauth was convicted of attempted murder and counselling to commit murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Manslaughter; Jury Questions
Dittmer v. R., 2025 BCCA 260 (42009)
Ms. Dittmer fatally shot her son and was tried before a jury on a charge of second degree murder. The jury charge included an instruction on manslaughter. During deliberations, the jury asked “Regarding the reasonable person test can or how can we consider a dysfunctional or co-depend [sic] or abusive family relationship?” The trial judge provided further instructions. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter. The B.C.C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Police Opinion Evidence
Singh v. R., 2024 ABCA 109 (41772)
The Applicant was apprehended by police and arrested on drug trafficking charges. In the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Applicant was convicted of four counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and one count of possession of proceeds of crime in excess of $5K. The Applicant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting police surveillance and police opinion testimony presented at a mixed voir dire and relied on that evidence. The Alta. C.A. unanimously dismissed the appeal. The majority judges concluded the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on the police opinion testimony, but applied the remedial provision in s. Section 686(1)(b)(iii), held the evidence was so overwhelming that, despite the fact the error was not minor, a conviction was inevitable. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
C-T v. R., 2025 NSCA 35 (41952)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family/Aboriginal Law: Property Valuation
Green v. Hill, 2025 ONCA 312 (41869)
Mr. Green and Ms. Hill were status Indians and members of the Six Nations of the Grand River. They began cohabiting in 2007, were married in 2013, and separated in 2015. They had no children. They had run multiple businesses which generated substantial cash that was used by both parties, but the finances of the businesses were not well tracked. In 2018, Ms. Hill brought an application seeking a divorce only, with property claims being added later. The parties provided numerous, often conflicting, accounts on issues relating to their assets and wealth. During the marriage, they were not critical of one another on this point. All of the real property at issue was on the Six Nations Reserve No. 40, so it could not be sold, purchased or encumbered. It was owned by the Crown, but in possession and control of the Six Nations Band Council. The Band Council can allot parcels to individual Band members by granting “Certificates of Possession”, which carry occupancy rights. Those rights can be bought and sold between Band members, but cannot be acquired by anyone else. The real property here was subject to Certificates of Possession. Both parties adduced expert evidence concerning the valuation of the businesses and lands, but there was no market data for the lands. The trial judge rejected the valuations put forward by Mr. Green and accepted the valuations put forward by Ms. Hill. The Ont. C.A. dismissed Mr. Green’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Custody and Parenting
S.R.A. v. S.S., 2025 ONCA 724 (42147)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of custody and parenting. “The motion for a stay of execution and the miscellaneous motion are dismissed without costs. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Equalization
Dhaliwal v. Nijher, et al., 2025 ONCA 325 (41883)
The plaintiff and the Respondent, Hardeep Nijher, were married for 14 months. After their separation in 2019, Mr. Nijher filed for a simple divorce. The plaintiff filed a response seeking equalization, spousal support, and other property-related remedies. She also commenced a concurrent civil action against Mr. Nijher and four members of his family—the other Respondents—seeking damages for intentional infliction of mental distress. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims except for the claim for equalization, which was granted in part. The plaintiff was ordered to pay a total of $85K in fixed costs to the Respondents. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial decision and refused leave to appeal the cost award. “The motion to dispense with the filing of the printed version of the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Time Extensions
Crowley, et al. v. Yehia, et al. 2025 ONCA (41849)
Mr. Crowley and Ms. Mathers separated in 2015 and subsequently divorced. Ms. Mathers’ original lawyer had prepared a separation agreement in 2017, but the parties did not sign it. Following the sudden death of her original lawyer, Ms. Mathers retained a new lawyer, Ms. Yehia, and initiated proceedings against Mr. Crowley in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The judge presiding over the divorce proceedings rejected Mr. Crowley’s argument a binding separation agreement existed between the parties. Mr. Crowley appealed the decision, and his appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay. In 2021, Mr. Crowley initiated a civil action against Ms. Yehia, Ms. Yehia’s firm, and Ms. Mathers. He alleged Ms. Yehia and her firm had ignored the separation agreement and advised Ms. Mathers to initiate unnecessary divorce proceedings. A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out Mr. Crowley’s statement of claim on the grounds it was an abuse of process and dismissed the action on the grounds there was no genuine issue in dispute requiring a trial. Mr. Crowley appealed this order to the Ont. C.A. and obtained an extension of time to complete his appeal. He failed to complete the appeal by the new deadline, and his appeal was dismissed. Approximately 14 months after this deadline, Mr. Crowley applied for another extension of time to complete his appeal. The Ont. C.A. dismissed Mr. Crowley’s motion for another extension of time, concluding it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and prohibited him from making any further motions without leave to do so. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Insurance: Settlements
Ho v. Allstate Insurance of Canada, et al.¸ 2025 ONCA (41918)
Thanh Ho sought benefits after being involved in an automobile accident in 2000. Disputes arose between Mr. Ho and the insurer, Allstate, regarding his entitlement to certain benefits. In 2002, Mr. Ho applied for arbitration before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”). Following a settlement discussion with an arbitrator, the parties settled the matter on May 17, 2004, and various documents — including the settlement disclosure notice (“SDN”) — were completed. Mr. Ho was not directed to sign the acknowledgement in that document, but each page of the SDN was initialled by Mr. Ho and signed by a witness. In February 2005, FSCO advised Mr. Ho it would close his file as the matter had been settled. In 2019, Mr. Ho notified Allstate and FSCO he wished to reopen the arbitration hearing, thereby rescinding the 2004 settlement. In 2020, FSCO ordered Mr. Ho was precluded from proceeding to arbitration because his application has been extinguished. On November 28, 2020, Mr. Ho filed an application for a determination with the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Mr. Ho argued because he had not signed the acknowledgement in the SDN, the SDN did not comply with the requirements set out in s. 9.1 of Automobile Insurance with respect to settlements; consequently, he argued the two-day rescission period set out in that provision did not apply, allowing him to rescind the settlement beyond the expiry of that period. The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mr. Ho’s application and, subsequently, his request for reconsideration of its first decision. It concluded the SDN complied with the requirements of s. 9.1 and Mr. Ho was bound by the 2004 settlement as he did not rescind it within the two-day rescission period provided for in s. 9.1. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Ho’s appeal and J.R. of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s two decisions, and the Ont. C.A. dismissed his motion for leave to appeal the Divisional Court’s decision. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent Allstate Insurance of Canada.”
Leases: Notices to End Tenancy
Sefcikova, et al. v. Orca Realty Inc., Bayliss, et al., 2025 BCCA 174 (41959)
Gabriela Sefcikova and Kamil Sefcik were served with a notice to end their tenancy for the landlords’ use of the property. They vacated the property in accordance with the notice. Later, they commenced an action alleging the landlords had not occupied the property within a reasonable period after the effective date of notice, as required by the B.C. Residential Tenancy Act. The action was dismissed following summary trial. An appeal to the B.C.C.A. was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to respondents, Orca Realty Inc. and Sandra Bayliss.”
Municipal Law: Stop-Work Orders
Dimakos v. Toronto (City), 2025 ONCA (42010)
The Applicant, Peter Dimakos, was charged with two provincial offences for failing to comply with a municipal stop-work order issued by the Respondent, the City of Toronto. Mr. Dimakos brought a motion seeking to have the offences annulled due to lengthy delays in bringing his case to trial, which he alleged infringed his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by s. 11(b). A Justice of the Peace dismissed the Charter application, finding the motion was not properly before the court, given the Attorney General had not been adequately served and the application had not been perfected. A judge at the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Mr. Dimakos’ appeal from the Charter application ruling. A single judge at the Ont. C.A. dismissed Mr. Dimakos’ motion seeking leave to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Professions/Civil Litigation: Time Extensions
Kabir v. Complaints Director, College of Registered Nurses of Alberta, 2025 ABCA 269 (41988)
The Respondent Complaints Director, College of Registered Nurses of Alberta investigated complaints made against Nazeer Kabir, and referred the matter to a hearing tribunal under the Health Professions Act. Mr. Kabir sought to challenge the referral by way of J.R., then sought to bring an appeal before the Alta. C.A. His application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed. His application for leave to appeal the decision to deny the extension of time was also dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Real Property: Fire Inspections
Tan v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONCA (41928)
Mr. Tan was charged under the Ontario Fire Protection and Prevention Act. He owned a house in North York that was built in 2015 and received an occupancy permit in January 2016. As early as 2017, neighbours complained it was operating as a hotel, and the matter was referred to the Toronto Fire Services for an inspection. The Fire Inspector assigned to the file made numerous unsuccessful visits and had numerous interactions with Mr. Tan between December 4, 2017, and August 21, 2019. On August 21, 2019, a Notice of Violation under s. 28(1)(b) of the Act was issued and served on Mr. Tan. December 5, 2019, a full fire inspection was conducted pursuant to a warrant. Numerous indications the house was being run as a guest house were discovered, and numerous fire hazards noted. The Fire Inspector concluded the property was operating as a hotel, and was not in compliance with the Fire Code regulations for hotels. A Notice of Violation outlining 19 areas found to be in violation of the Fire Code was issued that day. At trial, the prosecutor invited the court to dismiss one charge against Mr. Tan, but he was convicted on all of the other charges. Fines were set for the individual offences, with a global total of $50K. Mr. Tan’s appeals as to conviction and sentence were dismissed, as was his request for leave to appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Tax: RRSP; Mutual Fund Trusts
Grenon v. R., 2025 CAF 129 (42016)
The RRSP of James Grenon (Mr. Grenon’s RRSP) acquired units in certain trusts established at the initiative of the annuitant, James Grenon. The Applicant is a self-directed RRSP for which Mr. Grenon is the annuitant and CIBC Trust Corporation is the trustee. As directed by Mr. Grenon, the Applicant invested in six income funds for which he acted as promoter, manager, and trustee. Mr. Grenon sought to have the income funds recognized as mutual fund trusts so that they would be considered eligible investments under the Income Tax Act for the Applicant. In 2013, the Minister of National Revenue assessed under Part I of the Income Tax Act in respect of Mr. Grenon’s RRSP for his 2004 to 2009 taxation years on the income from these trust units. Mr. Grenon’s RRSP appealed these assessments to the Tax Court of Canada, contesting their validity and arguing the assessments from 2004 to 2008 were time-barred. Before the Tax Court of Canada, the appeal against the assessment made by the Minister on March 6, 2013, for the 2004 to 2009 taxation years, pursuant to subsection 146(10.1) was allowed, and the appeal remanded to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment, taking into account the RRSP trust income received from the income funds during the 2005 taxation year must be reduced by $136,654,427. The appeal against the assessments dated March 6, 2013, for the 2004 to 2009 taxation years, under subsection 207.1(1) was dismissed. The Fed. C.A. allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the amended judgment of the Tax Court of Canada and rendered the decision the Tax Court of Canada should have made: (i) the appeal against the assessments made by the Minister on March 6, 2013, under Part I for the 2004 to 2009 taxation years is dismissed; (ii) the appeal against the assessments made by the Minister on March 6, 2013, under Part XI.1 for the taxation years 2004 to 2009 is allowed and those assessments cancelled. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Torts: MVA; Damages Reconsideration
McPhail v. Ross, 2025 BCCA 139 (41888)
The Applicant was injured in a car accident in December 2012 in Vancouver for which the Respondent admitted liability. The initial trial judge found the Applicant had not proven there was a loss of income or future care as a result of the MVA was required. She awarded the Applicant $35K in non-pecuniary damages to reflect some minor physical injuries and $2,475 in special damages. On appeal, the B.C.C.A. found the trial judge had overlooked expert evidence the Applicant had some lingering psychological symptoms caused by the accident. The matter was remitted to the trial court to reconsider damages in light of this evidence. The remittal judge found the evidence was not sufficient to prove the Applicant’s claims for a loss of earning capacity and rejected a new claim for loss of marriageability. However, the remittal judge increased the non-pecuniary damages to $50K and awarded an additional $3,600 to cover future counselling sessions. On appeal, the Applicant sought to introduce additional evidence from experts and argued the remittal judge, trial judge and the B.C.C.A. made several errors. The application to file fresh evidence was dismissed but the appeal was allowed and the award for non-pecuniary damages was increased to $60K. “The time to serve and file the reply is extended pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Universities: Student Discontinuance
Jeremiah A.G. Carrier v. University of Saskatchewan, 2025 SKCA 27 (42099)
In 2019, the University of Saskatchewan required Mr. Carrier discontinue his studies in the College of Arts and Science with the ability to apply for readmission. Mr. Carrier appealed to the Associate Dean of the College, who dismissed his appeal. Mr. Carrier appealed to the University Appeal Board which dismissed his appeal. More than two years later, Mr. Carrier filed a J.R. The reviewing judge struck a claim for damages and dismissed the J.R. on the basis of undue delay. The Sask. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for a stay and for other interim relief is dismissed. The application for leave to file fresh evidence and other relief is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Wills & Estates: Capacity; Undue Influence
Lamont v. Estate of Louis Fournier, et al., 2025 NBCA 79 (41949)
The deceased made a holographic codicil bequeathing his entire estate to the plaintiff and revoking all his previous wills, thereby disinheriting his family. The judge hearing the case declared the codicil invalid on the grounds that testamentary capacity had not been established and, in the alternative, due to undue influence. The NB C.A. dismissed the appeal, ruling the plaintiff had neither demonstrated a legal error in the reasoning of the judge hearing the case, nor identified a manifest and decisive error in the judge’s conclusions. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Workers Comp: Settlements
Holowachuk v. Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board, 2025 SKCA 58 (41941)
In 1994, Ms. Holowachuk’s husband died in a traffic accident in the course of his employment. As his spouse, she was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits. She sued the other driver under the Sask. Fatal Accidents Act and received a settlement. In 2001, the settlement funds were paid into court pending resolution of a subrogation issue raised by the Workers’ Compensation Board. In 2002, she and the WCB entered into a settlement agreement which provided she would receive funds under the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1979. She also chose to receive a portion of the settlement then rather than receiving it as an annuity after she turned 65. In 2006, Ms. Holowachuk attempted to have the latter aspect of the settlement agreement set aside. The WCB Appeal Tribunal rejected the claim on the grounds the agreement could not be renegotiated. When Ms. Holowachuk turned 65 in January 2015, the WCB ended her benefits. Her appeal to the WCB was dismissed, and the WCB Appeal Tribunal dismissed her further appeal because the issues had been decided in 2002. Her request for reconsideration was dismissed. J.R. of that decision was not sought. In 2023, Ms. Holowachuk issued the statement of claim at issue, arguing, inter alia, that she should have received benefits after she turned 65. The WCB asked that the claim be dismissed as statute barred and res judicata. The chambers judge found the settlement agreement expressly stated there would be no annuity — Ms. Holowachuk had opted to receive a portion of the settlement funds at the time of settlement rather than an annuity. The claim was also frivolous because it was plain and obvious it was statute barred under the Limitations Act and there was no reason to suspend or delay the operation of the limitation period because the WCB had not misled her. It was also an abuse of process as being res judicata. The Sask. C.A. dismissed Ms. Holowachuk’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”