COURT FILE NO.: 09/280-00ML
DATE: 20090611
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
BROCK R. V. CENTRE INC. and DONALD LAWRENCE HAIGHT
Plaintiffs
(Appellants)
- and -
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, BDO DUNWOODY LIMITED/BDO DUNWOODY LIMITEE and BDO DUNWOODY LIMITED/BDO DUNWOODY LIMITEE, RECEIVER OF BROCK R. V. CENTRE INC.
Defendants
(Respondent: Royal Bank of Canada)
Jordan D. Sobel, for the Appellant
Milton A. Davis and Brendan Hughes, for the Respondent, Royal Bank of Canada
HEARD at Toronto: June 11, 2009
PARDU J.: (Orally)
[1] The plaintiffs move for leave to appeal from and for a stay of an order of Newbould J. refusing to grant an adjournment of the trial of this matter. The decision whether or not to grant an adjournment is a discretionary decision entitled to a high degree of deference. This is particularly so for matters on the commercial list where effective handling of the Court’s workload requires careful management (see Commercial List Practice Direction, para. 29).
[2] The plaintiff does not satisfy the test expressed in Rule 62.02(4) which provides that leave to appeal from an interlocutory order shall not be granted unless either:
(a) there is a conflicting decision on the matter and it is desirable that the appeal be heard, or
(b) there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and the proposed appeal involves matters of broad public importance.
[3] The issue of whether to grant an adjournment is not of broad public importance but concerns only the issues in this case between these parties.
[4] I do not have the benefit of the reasons of Newbould J. The most that I can say on the record before me is that in light of the long history of this matter, it was not necessarily an error to refuse the adjournment. On this record I have no basis to doubt the correctness of the order of Newbould J. Given that the plaintiffs do not satisfy the test to obtain leave to appeal, it would be inappropriate to stay the order of Newbould J. requiring this matter to proceed.
[5] On the material before me I am not satisfied that a last minute adjournment could be adequately compensated by an order for costs or a prejudgment interest.
[6] Motion for stay of the orders of Newbould J. requiring trial to proceed and for leave to appeal from refusal of adjournment dismissed.
[7] I have endorsed the Motion Record (which was the one filed in the Court of Appeal): “Motion for stay of orders of Newbould J. refusing adjournment and for leave to appeal from order requiring trial to proceed dismissed for reasons given orally. Costs of today fixed at $2,000.00, payable within 30 days to defendants by the plaintiffs.”
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 11, 2009
Date of Release: June 17, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 09/280-00ML
DATE: 20090611
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
BROCK R. V. CENTRE INC. and DONALD LAWRENCE HAIGHT
Plaintiffs
(Appellants)
- and -
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, BDO DUNWOODY LIMITED/BDO DUNWOODY LIMITEE and BDO DUNWOODY LIMITED/BDO DUNWOODY LIMITEE, RECEIVER OF BROCK R. V. CENTRE INC.
Defendants
(Respondent: Royal Bank of Canada)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 11, 2009
Date of Release: June 17, 2009