In this case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the proposition that there is no inherent jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal where it is set by statute – that the power to extend must be found in the statute itself or in some other statute.
“[t]his appeal concerns the circumstances under which a law firm or a lawyer should be removed from representing a party to an action because there is a potential that staff or lawyers of the firm might be required to give evidence in the proceedings.”
In this case the C.A. provided a helpful summary of the legal framework governing appeals from arbitration awards and the principles applicable to that framework.
In this case, The C.A. emphasized that the decision to remove/not remove a lawyer is an exercise of discretion “within the innate jurisdiction of the Court of King’s Bench” and owed deference on appeal.
This case raises two interesting, practical issues: 1) What courts should do where there is no transcript of proceedings in the context of a judicial review application; and 2) Under what circumstances can an employer ask unionized employees to submit to drug and alcohol tests?