ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
D.D.S. INVESTMENTS LTD.
Claimant
(Appellant in Appeal)
- and -
CITY OF TORONTO
Respondent
(Respondent in Appeal)
Robert G. Ackerman, Appellant
Brendan O’Callaghan, for the Respondent
Joseph Bonfa, Unrepresented
HEARD at Toronto: February 21, 2008
CUMMING J.: (Orally)
1First, it seems to me that it is apparent that there is a breakdown in terms of the relationship between D.D.S. Investments and its counsel, Mr. Ackerman. The breakdown is such that the motion of Mr. Ackerman to be removed as solicitor of record is properly to be granted.
2Secondly, given that Mr. Bonfa and D.D.S. Investments is now without counsel and this is a complex matter it is proper to adjourn the scheduled appeal sine die. The time required for the appeal includes a first day of a motion by D.D.S. Investments to introduce fresh evidence for the purpose of the appeal, followed by two days of the appeal, so three days in total is required.
3D.D.S. Investments is to have 40 days from today to obtain counsel for the purpose of pursuing the motion for fresh evidence and the appeal. If the City of Toronto, the respondent to the appeal and motion, has not heard from new counsel within that 40 day period, the City of Toronto is at liberty to set down the adjourned motion and appeal for disposition.
4After submissions, it is ordered:
(i) The motion of Mr. Ackerman to be removed as solicitor and counsel of record is granted.
(ii) D.D.S. Investments is to have 40 days from today to obtain new counsel.
(iii) The pending date for the motion of D.D.S. Investments for fresh evidence and the appeal (being April 3 and 4, 2008), is adjourned sine die (3 days will be required).
(iv) The City of Toronto respondent may unilaterally set down the motion/appeal for a new date (3 days) if D.D.S. has not appointed new counsel within 40 days.
(v) The issue of wasted costs to the City for the adjournment of the original June 14, 2007 date for the appeal and the motion date, today, re the matter of fresh evidence, is left to be dealt with by the panel ultimately hearing the appeal, as the panel sees fit.
5No costs re Mr. Ackerman’s motion to either Mr. Ackerman or D.D.S.
CUMMING J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 21, 2008
Date of Release: February 26, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: 351/06
DATE: 20080221
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
D.D.S. INVESTMENTS LTD.
Claimant
(Appellant in Appeal)
- and -
CITY OF TORONTO
Respondent
(Respondent in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CUMMING J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 21, 2008
Date of Release: February 26, 2008