Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Polish Alliance of Canada v. Polish Association of Toronto Limited, 2014 ONSC 6125
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 450/14
DATE: 20141021
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
THE POLISH ALLIANCE OF CANADA Plaintiff
– and –
POLISH ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO LIMITED, MAREK MIASIK aka MAREK ADAM MIASIK, MARIA MIASIK, JAN ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ELIE ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ARGYRIS aka JOHN ARGYRIS, WLADYSLAW JASLAN aka WLADYSLAW JULIAN JASLAN, HELENA JASLAN, EUGENIUSZ SKIBICKI, CZESLAWA ERICKSEN, STANISLAW ROGOZ aka STAN ROGOZ, ALBERT JOSEPH FLIS and RICHARD RUSEK Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
POLISH ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO LIMITED, MAREK MIASIK aka MAREK ADAM MIASIK, MARIA MIASIK, JAN ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ELIE ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ARGYRIS aka JOHN ARGYRIS. WLADYSLAW JASLAN aka WLADYSLAW JULIAN JASLAN, HELENA JASLAN, EUGENIUSZ SKIBICKI, CZESLAWA ERICKSEN, STANISLAW ROGOZ aka STAN ROGOZ, ALBERT JOSEPH FLIS and RICHARD RUSEK Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
-and –
THE POLISH ALLIANCE OF CANADA, ROBERT ZAWIERUCHA, TADEUSZ MAZIARZ, ELIZABETH BETOWSKI, DANUTA ZAWIERUCHA, TERESA SZRAMEK, ANDRZEJ SZUBA, ADAM SIKORA, ELZBIETA GAZDA, STANISLAW GIDZINSKI, STANISLAW IWANICKI and TADEUSZ SMIETANA Defendants by Counterclaim
Counsel:
Bogdan A. Kaminski, for the Plaintiff (Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim)
Bernie S. Romano, for the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
Patrick Shea, for the Receiver, Collins Barrow Toronto Limited
HEARD at Toronto: October 21, 2014
Oral Reasons for Judgment
D. L. CORBETT J. (ORALLY)
[1] Counsel, I have endorsed the back of Mr. Romano’s Motion Record: “Mr. Romano advises this day that his clients will not pursue this motion for leave to appeal. Motion dismissed as abandoned, without costs. Oral reasons given this day in respect to remaining matters.”
[2] Those matters concern the Polish Alliance of Canada’s pending motion for leave to appeal from Myers J., which is currently scheduled to be heard on December 9, 2014 and a motion for stay pending the motion for leave to appeal and if the leave be granted, stay pending appeal. That motion is scheduled in Superior Court for November 4, 2014.
[3] The parties were both scheduled to proceed with their respective motions for leave to appeal today. The materials had been served but they have not been filed. The materials were rejected by the court office because the parties had not obtained issued and entered orders, which would form the basis for jurisdiction for the motion for leave to appeal.
[4] At the outset of the hearing today, I advised both sides that I was prepared to hear the motions for leave to appeal on the merits, if they wished to proceed. I would have directed that the orders be issued and entered today while I was reading the materials so that I could then adjudicate the motion for leave to appeal.
[5] For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the Polish Alliance of Canada does not wish to proceed today, but rather wishes to proceed on the schedule that had been agreed before today. I cannot be critical of counsel for that decision. I understand Mr. Kaminski is relatively new to the file and he was not comfortable proceeding in the circumstances.
[6] The net result is that the parties will be put to the expense of two more appearances – one on November 4, 2014 and the other on December 9, 2014. The motion on November 4 is for a stay pending the hearing of the motion for leave to appeal. Ordinarily, the question of the stay after leave is granted would be a matter that would be addressed at the time leave was granted or in the aftermath of it.
[7] It is evident from my brief review of the decision of Myers J. from the twelve day trial that the parties have incurred very substantial costs to date and appear poised to incur substantial additional costs before this matter is finally concluded.
[8] I am advised that the decision of Myers J. is also the subject matter of an appeal to the Court of Appeal, so two different appeal routes are currently contemplated in respect to this matter.
[9] It is unfortunate that the parties are put to the expense of what will be three appearances to deal with motion for leave to appeal and a stay pending that motion on top of the other costs that they have incurred to date.
[10] I understand from counsel that, given the current state of things, there is every prospect that this matter may see multiple appearances before the Divisional Court before it is finally resolved. Certainly, that is Mr. Shea’s fear and some efficiency might be obtained if the matter was generally managed in the Divisional Court by one judge. That is not a common approach to litigation in the Divisional Court but not one that would be foreclosed. I have directed counsel that if they wish to pursue that sort of oversight of the case, they should address that request to Nordheimer J., currently the managing judge for the Divisional Court. If such an approach is made, I have advised counsel that they may indicate to Nordheimer J. that I am prepared to undertake that role. I must add to that that I am not so deeply into this file that I would be the only practical choice for the role. I spent roughly an hour with counsel and with the materials this morning and only have an introductory understanding of the history of the matter and any other judge could pick it up very quickly, to the point where my knowledge currently is at.
[11] I am not in a position to say today whether the Polish Alliance of Canada’s position in pursuing this through two more appearances before getting a decision on the merits of its motion for leave to appeal is a reasonable and practical thing to do or not. Should it appear otherwise to the court ultimately hearing this matter, that may be a matter to take into account in respect to the issue of costs.
[12] I am not going to award any costs today, one way or another and leave an award of costs in respect of today’s appearance in the discretion of the Judge who decides the motion for leave to appeal scheduled for December 9, 2014.
D. L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 21, 2014
Date of Release: October 22, 2014
CITATION: Polish Alliance of Canada v. Polish Association of Toronto Limited, 2014 ONSC 6125
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 450/14
DATE: 20141021
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D. L. CORBETT J.
BETWEEN:
THE POLISH ALLIANCE OF CANADA Plaintiff
– and –
POLISH ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO LIMITED, MAREK MIASIK aka MAREK ADAM MIASIK. MARIA MIASIK, JAN ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ELIE ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ARGYRIS aka JOHN ARGYRIS, WLADYSLAW JASLAN aka WLADYSLAW JULIAN JASLAN, HELENA JASLAN, EUGENIUSZ SKIBICKI, CZESLAWA ERICKSEN, STANISLAW ROGOZ aka STAN ROGOZ, ALBERT JOSEPH FLIS and RICHARD RUSEK Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
POLISH ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO LIMITED, MAREK MIASIK aka MAREK ADAM MIASIK, MARIA MIASIK, JAN ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ELIE ARGYRIS aka LOUIS JOHN ARGYRIS aka JOHN ARGYRIS. WLADYSLAW JASLAN aka WLADYSLAW JULIAN JASLAN, HELENA JASLAN, EUGENIUSZ SKIBICKI, CZESLAWA ERICKSEN, STANISLAW ROGOZ aka STAN ROGOZ, ALBERT JOSEPH FLIS and RICHARD RUSEK Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
-and –
THE POLISH ALLIANCE OF CANADA, ROBERT ZAWIERUCHA, TADEUSZ MAZIARZ, ELIZABETH BETOWSKI, DANUTA ZAWIERUCHA, TERESA SZRAMEK, ANDRZEJ SZUBA, ADAM SIKORA, ELZBIETA GAZDA, STANISLAW GIDZINSKI, STANISLAW IWANICKI and TADEUSZ SMIETANA Defendants by Counterclaim
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 21, 2014
Date of Release: October 22, 2014