Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• This matter involves a procedural case conference before Justice B.A. MacFarlane of the Ontario Divisional Court to address timetable and process issues only.
• Alesha Little is appealing orders made by Justice Nicholson dated April 2, 2026, and an endorsement by Justice MacFarlane dated April 24, 2026, which dismissed a motion to stay the order.
• Redirected from the Court of Appeal, the appeal is to be heard by a panel of the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.
• Justice Thorburn of the Court of Appeal had previously granted a stay pending the matter's return to the Divisional Court; no automatic stay exists when seeking a panel review.
• An interim-interim stay was granted conditionally, requiring the Appellant to bring a stay motion returnable no later than June 12, 2026, failing which the stay is lifted immediately.
• Ms. Little sought disability accommodations citing Autism and requested that her boyfriend, Shaun Corlett — who is neither a lawyer nor a licensed paralegal — act as her agent.

Facts of the case

Alesha Little (Appellant) and John Naccarato (Respondent) are the parties to this matter, which came before Justice B.A. MacFarlane of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, on June 3, 2026. Both parties were self-represented. The matter arose at a case conference held in writing, convened in Justice MacFarlane's capacity as Local Administrative Justice for the Divisional Court, strictly to address procedural matters. The Appellant had initially sought to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the matter was redirected to be heard by a panel of the Divisional Court. The appeals under review are the decision of Justice Nicholson dated April 2, 2026, and Justice MacFarlane's own endorsement dated April 24, 2026, which dismissed a motion to stay the order — the order itself appearing to concern an eviction.

Applicable procedural rules and statutory provisions

No contractual or policy terms are at issue in this proceeding, which is purely procedural in nature. The relevant legal framework includes s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, which permits a party to request that a panel of the Divisional Court review a decision of a single Divisional Court judge. Rule 63.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs stays pending appeal, and Rule 37 governs motion procedure. Rule 7 governs the appointment of a Litigation Guardian for parties who may be incapable of managing their own proceedings. Section 134 of the Courts of Justice Act provides the authority under which the court may grant an interim-interim stay.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice MacFarlane clarified that because the Appellant seeks a panel review of orders made by a single Divisional Court judge, there is no automatic stay in place — a distinction the court emphasized. Any continued stay must be sought by way of a formal motion in civil motions court. On the question of accommodations, the Appellant stated she has Autism and requested that her boyfriend, Shaun Corlett, act as her agent in the proceedings. The court noted that Mr. Corlett is neither a lawyer nor a licensed paralegal and that no evidence of the nature or extent of Ms. Little's disabilities was before the court at the conference. Justice MacFarlane urged Ms. Little to seek legal advice and consider appointing a Litigation Guardian under Rule 7 if she felt incapable of managing the appeal. For the limited purposes of that day's procedural matters, Mr. Corlett was permitted to speak on Ms. Little's behalf.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice MacFarlane granted an interim-interim stay pursuant to s. 134 of the Courts of Justice Act, on condition that the Appellant bring her motion for a continued stay returnable at a regular Friday motion court in London no later than June 12, 2026. If no motion is heard by that date, or if there is non-compliance with the timetable set out in the endorsement, the stay is lifted with immediate effect unless a further order is made. The parties agreed to a timetable: the Appellant is to serve and file her Divisional Court Panel Review materials within 90 days of the June 3, 2026 endorsement; the Respondent is to file responding materials within 30 days of receipt; and the Appellant may file reply materials within 30 days thereafter. The parties are also directed to communicate about the litigation only through email, in a respectful and polite manner. This endorsement is procedural in nature; there is no successful party on the merits and no monetary award, damages, or costs were ordered.