Court File and Parties
CITATION: Goodman v. Florin, 2016 ONSC 7435
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 274/16
DATE: 20161129
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C.
BETWEEN:
FREDERICK BARRY GOODMAN Applicant
– and –
PATRICK FLORIN Respondent
COUNSEL:
Steven Bellissimo, for the Applicant
Self-Represented
HEARD: November 28, 2016
Reasons for Judgment
[1] The respondent on this motion, Patrick Florin, sued the applicant, Mr. Frederick Goodman, in Small Claims Division of the Superior Court for the return of fees paid to Mr. Goodman for his services. Mr. Goodman is a paralegal.
[2] The trial was originally scheduled for March 31 2016. It was adjourned twice at the request Mr. Goodman; with the result that the Small Claims Court action was set for trial on June 16, 2016.
[3] On June 2, 2016 Mr. Goodman moved before a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court for permission to amend his defence, file a Defendant’s Claim and again adjourn the trial. The Deputy Judge who heard this request permitted Mr. Goodman to amend his defence and file a Defendant’s Claim. However, the deputy judge refused to postpone the trial.
[4] On June 7, 2016 Mr. Goodman commenced an application for judicial review of the Deputy Judge’s decision. On June 16, 2016 the Deputy Judge, who was the same Deputy Judge who had refused to adjourn the trial, decided to adjourn the trial due to Mr. Goodman’s outstanding judicial review of his decision.
[5] Mr. Goodman did not perfect his judicial review application within the time prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, due to the fact that Mr. Goodman’s application dealt with review of an interlocutory decision made in the Small Claims Court, the Deputy Judge was not required to file a record of the proceedings. As a result, Mr. Goodman was required to file his application record and factum within 30 days of June 7, 2016. Mr. Goodman failed to do this and his application for judicial review of the decision of the Deputy Judge was dismissed by the Registrar.
[6] In response to the dismissal of his judicial review application by the Registrar, Mr. Goodman moved to set aside the Registrar’s order. This motion was dismissed on October 5, 2016.
[7] Mr. Goodman attempted to obtain a leave to appeal the dismissal of his motion to set aside the Registrar’s order. However he failed to file his application for leave to appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules. He now seeks an extension of time.
[8] Mr. Goodman’s application for an extension of time is refused.
[9] Mr. Goodman originally asked the Deputy Judge to adjourn his June 16, 2016 trial date. He has achieved that result. He has now had more than sufficient time to prepare his response to Mr. Florin’s claim that Mr. Goodman overcharged him. It would have been a relatively simple matter for Mr. Goodman to file a rudimentary Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal within the appropriate timelines and then file a supplementary notice if he felt that was necessary. His failure to do so has terminated this aspect of the dispute between himself and Mr. Florin. However, Mr. Goodman will still have his day in the Small Claims Court. He is fortunate that his lack of diligence did not result in a more permanent consequence.
[10] In order to avoid any confusion, it should be understood that counsel for Mr. Goodman was not acting for him while these events were occurring. Counsel was retained after the deadline for filing the Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal had passed.
[11] There is no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs are to be paid to the successful party. Mr. Goodman will pay forthwith to Mr. Florin $1200 on account of court costs for this application.
MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C.
Released: 20161129
CITATION: Goodman v. Florin, 2016 ONSC 7435
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 274/16
DATE: 20161129
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MARROCCO A.C.J.S.C.
BETWEEN:
FREDERICK BARRY GOODMAN Applicant
– and –
PATRICK FLORIN Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: 20161129