Sass v. Reingold, 2015 ONSC 4100

CITATION: Sass v. Reingold, 2015 ONSC 4100

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 10/14 DATE: 20150624

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

SWINTON, D. L. CORBETT AND POMERANCE JJ.

BETWEEN:

BARBARA REINGOLD SASS Appellant/Plaintiff

– and –

GENE STEVEN REINGOLD Respondent/Defendant

In Person In Person

HEARD at Toronto: June 24, 2015

D. L. CORBETT J. (ORALLY)

1The appellant commenced this application to enforce three judgments of the Courts of New York State under Ontario’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act. During oral argument before the motions judge the appellant argued that principles of judicial comity should be an answer to limitations difficulties arising on the application of the six year limitation period in ss. 2(1) of the Act.

2The motion judge found that the appellant had abandoned her reliance on the Act and that the appellant’s materials “are insufficient to support the appellant’s claim” on the basis of judicial comity.

3New York State is not a reciprocating State under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, thus the application as framed was ill-conceived. However, the judgments from New York State may still be pursued in Ontario on the basis of judicial comity: see Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, 234 D.L.R. (4th) 1.

4The parties are self-represented. While the Court should not be giving either side legal advice, the Court should be approaching the case with a view to securing a just final disposition on the merits by following a fair process.

5The appellant is not entitled to the expedited process under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, however, the motion judge erred in dismissing the claim rather than converting it into a claim for enforcement of a foreign judgment debt where the legal and factual issues could be dealt with on a proper record: see Lax v. Lax, 70 O.R. (3d) 530 (Ont. C.A.).

6Given the factual issues in this case, we exercise our discretion to convert the application into an action under the Simplified Rules under Court File No. CV-13-473734, with an effective commencement date of the proceeding that is the same as the commencement date of the application, and to establish a timetable for the parties to move forward to a determination on the merits.

7Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the dismissal order. Order to go:

(a) Converting this application into an action;

(b) Requiring the appellant to deliver a Statement of Claim by July 31, 2015;

(c) Requiring the respondent to deliver a Statement of Defence by August 31, 2015;

(d) Requiring the appellant to deliver any reply by September 15, 2015;

(e) The respondent’s address for service is 391 Sherbourne Street, #201, Toronto, Ontario, M4X 1K4. That shall be the respondent’s address for service until changed in accordance with the Rules or by Court Order;

(f) The deadlines provided in this Order may be changed by written consent of the parties filed with the Court or by Order of a Justice of the Superior Court of Justice.

SWINTON J.

COSTS

8I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book, “This appeal is allowed for oral reasons given by D. L. Corbett J. Order is to go in the form of the order set out in the reasons converting the application to an action and setting a timetable. Costs to the appellant for her reasonable disbursements, which included a flight from New York and a transcript, are fixed at $700.00, payable by the respondent within 30 days.”

___________________________ D. L. CORBETT J.