Peoples Trust Company v. Rose of Sharon (Ontario) Retirement Community, 2014 ONCA 533

ENDORSEMENT

1The appellant 2383431 Ontario Inc. ("238") appeals from the Order of Mesbur J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 13, 2013. The sole basis of the appeal is 238's claim that the motion judge erred by not granting an adjournment on the hearing date to enable 238 to consider its position and file material.

2238 was an asignee of a second mortgage on the property. It had assumed this position in September 2013, three months before the settlement hearing scheduled for December 13. Its predecessor in title, IWOK, had participated in the receivership proceedings.

3The appellant asserts that it had no notice of the December 13 hearing, that it only retained counsel a day before, and that the motion judge erred by not granting it an adjournment.

4We do not accept this submission. The decision to grant or refuse an adjournment is a discretionary one and is, therefore, entitled to deference on appellate review: see: R. v. Wood, 2005 CanLII 13779 (ONCA), at para. 7. We can see no basis for interfering with the motion judge's decision to refuse 238's request for an adjournment. Indeed, her reasoning on this issue, especially at paragraph 2, is entirely sound.

5The appeal is dismissed. The respondent Peoples Trust Company is entitled to its costs of the appeal fixed at $7000, inclusive of disbursements and HST. No costs to the respondent Deloitte & Touche Inc.