Court and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20220428 DOCKET: M53079 (M52945)

Lauwers, Nordheimer and Zarnett JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. Plaintiffs (Moving Parties)

and

Joy Overtveld, Todd Overtveld, Gary Katz, Charles Rotenberg, Logan Katz LLP, MBC Law PC, Roger Ramonat, Leonard Burnstein, Francine Sarazin, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Kathleen McDormand, James Law, David Sheriff-Scott, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Jamie MacDonald, Cavanaugh LLP, Susanne Sviergula, Blaney McMurtry LLP, Teri MacDonald, Michael Rappaport, Merovitz Potechin LLP, Yasmin Vinograd, KMH Lawyers, Miriam Vale Peters, Chuck Merovitz, Maureen MacGillvray and Tina Johanson Defendants (Responding Parties)

Counsel: George F. Windsor, for the moving parties Gavin J. Tighe, for the responding parties Blaney McMurtry LLP and Teri MacDonald, and as agent for the responding parties Charles Rotenberg, MBC Law PC, Roger Ramonat, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Kathleen McDormand, David Sheriff-Scott, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Jamie MacDonald, Cavanaugh LLP, Susanne Sviergula, Michael Rappaport, Merovitz Potechin LLP, Yasmin Vinograd and Chuck Merovitz Anne Posno, for the responding parties Joy Overtveld, Todd Overtveld and Gary Katz Jessica Warwick, for the responding party Logan Katz LLP Kerry W. Nash, for the responding party Leonard Burnstein

Heard: April 25, 2022

Reasons for Decision

[1] The moving parties seek a review of the order of the motion judge that dismissed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the order of Labrosse J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 27, 2021, which struck out the statement of claim in this action against all defendants [1].

[2] The underlying dispute involves the individual moving party and his company on the one hand and his two children on the other. In 2011, the individual moving party appointed his children as his powers of attorney. He now asserts that his children are improperly interfering with his affairs.

[3] The proceedings have morphed into broader claims and allegations against many others, including lawyers who have acted on matters and judges who have been involved in hearing and determining steps in the proceedings or otherwise in giving directions with respect to them.

[4] Although the moving parties had actions ongoing in the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, the moving parties started another action in the Superior Court of Justice in Brampton. It was this latter action in which the statement of claim was struck out.

[5] The motion judge applied the proper test in considering the motion for an extension of time. He found that there was no merit to the appeal. He also found that the responding parties would be prejudiced by the granting of an extension of time. He therefore concluded that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension of time to appeal.

[6] The moving parties have not demonstrated any error in the motion judge’s analysis. We agree with the motion judge that there is no apparent merit to the appeal. The Brampton action appears to be an improper attempt to circumvent rulings that had been made in the Ottawa actions. If there is any merit to the allegations that the individual moving party makes regarding the actions of his children, they can be properly litigated in the Ottawa actions.

[7] The motion is dismissed. The responding parties, Blaney McMurtry LLP and Teri MacDonald, are entitled to their costs of the motion fixed in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T. The responding parties, Joy Overtveld, Todd Overtveld and Gary Katz, are entitled to their costs of the motion fixed in the amount of $1,500 inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T. No other costs are awarded.

"P. Lauwers J.A."

"I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A."

"B. Zarnett J.A."

[1] Overtveld and Gi-Las Management v. Joy Overtveld et al., 2021 ONSC 6393.