COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: Mary Elizabeth Saylor and William Anthony Madsen
Applicants/Respondents by Counter Application
(Respondents on the Appeal)
v. Patricia Ann Brooks
Respondent/Applicant by Counter-Application
BEFORE: MCMURTRY C.J.O. (IN CHAMBERS)
COUNSEL: Joel Skapinker
For the Moving Party/Intervenor, Patricia Ann Brooks
Sean Cumming
For the Respondent/Appellant in Appeal, Robert Ackerman
Lorne Silver
For the Respondent/Respondents in Appeal, Mary Elizabeth Hoy and William Anthony Madsen
HEARD: January 7, 2005
[1]
Motion to Add Party
Patricia Brooks has applied for leave to be added as a party to this appeal. Ms. Brooks was a party to the underlying proceedings that gave rise to the order under appeal and, in my view, should have been a party to the appeal. She clearly has an interest in the subject matter of this appeal and is in fact already a party to the appeal and should have been served with the notice of appeal and relevant documents related to the appeal.
[1]
Scheduling and Timetable
The appeal relates to an interim order made during the course of the trial affecting the applicants counsel, Robert Ackerman. That trial has now concluded and further appeals have been filed by Mr. Ackerman (C42832) and by Ms. Brooks (C42850). Counsel for Mr. Ackerman expects that his further appeal may be abandoned, depending on the form of the order issued by the trial judge. The issues in all of these appeals overlap, at least to some extent, and it makes sense that they all be heard together. This will necessitate adjourning this appeal to a later date, as the new appeals are not yet perfected. In order to minimize any potential prejudice to the respondents, all of the appeals should be expedited and heard together at an early date. I am advised that there may be a few days of the trial proceedings remaining to be transcribed. I would urge the court reporter to provide the transcript as soon as possible.
2The appeal brought by Ms. Brooks is to be perfected no later than Monday, February 14, 2005. The respondents’ materials are to be filed no later than Monday, March 14, 2005. The respondents may file a common set of materials in response to all appeals, if so advised. As the second appeal brought on behalf of Mr. Ackerman is somewhat contingent, and will depend on the form of the final order, I leave to the parties to arrange a suitable timetable for perfection and response that will permit that appeal to be heard together with the other appeals. However, if difficulties arise with any of the foregoing schedules, I may be spoken to further.
3The appeals will be heard on May 5, 2005. Two and one-half hours are allocated for the argument of the appeals.
[4]
Costs
Costs of this motion are reserved to the panel hearing the appeals.
_____ “R. Roy McMurtry C.J.O.”