COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Riordon v. Broley, 2026 ONCA 610
DATE: 20260827
DOCKET: COA-25-CV-1507
Miller, Wilson and Madsen JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Luanne Mona Broley
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Rhonda Jean Riordon
Defendant (Appellant)
Soumya Roop Sanyal, for the appellant
Jamie Sanderson, for the respondent
Heard: August 21, 2026
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Meredith A. Donohue of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 26, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The appellant, Rhonda Jean Riordon, appeals from the decision of the motion judge on a summary judgment motion, arguing that the motion judge dismissed her request for an adjournment of the motion and thereby denied her access to justice and procedural fairness. We dismissed the appeal after hearing the submissions of the appellant for reasons to follow. These are our reasons.
[2] The history of the motion is important to put the decision of the motion judge in context. This matter arises from an agreement of purchase and sale that was signed April 8, 2022. Under this agreement, the appellant was to purchase a residential home from the respondent for $1,500,000. Three days prior to the closing date, the appellant advised she could not obtain financing for the purchase, and she failed to close the transaction. The respondent relisted the property and it eventually sold for $1,100,000. The respondent then issued a claim against the appellant for the difference in the sale price that she was able to obtain after the appellant failed to close.
[3] On July 11, 2024, the respondent served a summary judgment motion seeking a determination of the matter. On December 3, 2024, a timetable for the service of materials was set by Henderson J. and the motion was fixed for a full day returnable June 16, 2025. The appellant breached the timetable by failing to serve her responding materials by January 31, 2025. She requested and obtained from the respondent an extension to February 28, 2025. Again, she failed to deliver her responding materials.
[4] A further case conference was convened April 24, 2025. At that time, the appellant indicated she would be asking for an adjournment of the motion. She was ordered to serve her motion for the adjournment by May 15, 2025. She failed to do so.
[5] On June 13, 2025, the appellant served materials requesting an adjournment of the motion set for June 16, 2025. On the return date of the motion, the motion judge granted her request and ordered: “This court reluctantly allows one adjournment on strict terms to a date that is peremptory as against the defendant as well as costs thrown away payable to the plaintiff.” The motion was adjourned to September 26, 2025 peremptory on the appellant, and a new timetable was implemented by court order. The appellant was ordered to serve and file her responding materials by July 7, 2025, and costs of $4,000 were ordered to be paid by July 16, 2025, failing which she was not permitted to file any further materials.
[6] The appellant breached the timetable as she failed to deliver her responding materials by July 16, 2025 and she did not pay the costs award.
[7] On September 24, 2025, the appellant once again requested an adjournment of the motion. In her reasons, the motion judge reviewed the history of the action, noting the contumelious delay occasioned by the actions of the appellant. In particular, the motion judge noted that notwithstanding the various orders that compelled the appellant to deliver her responding materials months previously, she failed to do so even at the return date of the peremptory motion.
[8] On appeal, the appellant submits that the failure of the motion judge to grant the requested adjournment denied her procedural fairness and access to justice and she argues there were other less drastic measures that should have been implemented to address any delay. We do not agree.
[9] As the motion judge correctly observed, exceptional circumstances would be required to grant an adjournment in this case. Summary judgment motions are intended as an efficient way of dealing with cases that do not require a trial. They are meant to facilitate access to justice by providing a more economical and expeditious resolution: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 34. Repeated adjournment requests undermine the goals of summary judgment, particularly when they are made at the last minute: Royal Bank of Canada v. Puzzolanti, 2018 ONCA 917, at para. 7. As this court has previously cautioned, “Last-minute adjournments waste judicial resources and public funds”: Turbo Logistics Canada Inc. v. HSBC Bank Canada, 2016 ONCA 222, 401 D.L.R. (4th) 187, at para. 35.
[10] Viewed in their entirety, the actions of the appellant demonstrate an intention to delay the action moving forward and to disregard numerous orders of the court. The initial return date of the motion was set almost a year after the summary judgment motion had been served on the appellant. She ignored the timetable orders thereby preventing the motion being heard in June 2025. She was granted further indulgence by the court, and given a new return date for the motion which was marked peremptory. She again failed to deliver her materials and failed to pay the costs ordered. She then asked for another adjournment.
[11] The granting of an adjournment request is a discretionary order and is entitled to deference: Gionet v. Pingue, 2018 ONCA 1040, 22 R.F.L. (8th) 55, at para. 20. The motion judge set out very detailed reasons for refusing to grant the adjournment request. There was no denial of procedural fairness. Court orders must be respected and complied with. As this court has emphasized, judges on adjournment motions are to “consider not only the orderly processing of civil trials, but the need to effectively enforce court orders”: Khimji v. Dhanani, 2004 CanLII 12037 (ON CA), 69 O.R. (3d) 790 (C.A.), at para. 27. Here, the date for the motion was set months in advance and the court implemented a timetable for the delivery of materials to ensure both parties would be ready on the return date of the motion. The appellant failed to comply with the timetable order. Notwithstanding being granted numerous indulgences by opposing counsel and the court, she failed to deliver responding materials so the motion could be determined. The unfairness to the respondent is clear.
Disposition
[12] The appeal is dismissed.
[13] Costs of the appeal are fixed in the sum of $11,501.59 on a partial indemnity basis. They are payable forthwith by the appellant to the respondent, along with the costs ordered on June 16, 2025 of $4,000.
“B.W. Miller J.A.”
“D.A. Wilson J.A.”
“L. Madsen J.A.”