Royal Bank of Canada v. Puzzolanti, 2018 ONCA 917

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-11-15 Docket: C65268

Judges: Watt, Miller and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between

Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Michael Puzzolanti Defendant (Appellant)

Counsel

For the Appellant: Domenic Saverino

For the Respondent: Natalie Marconi

Heard and Released Orally: November 14, 2018

On Appeal From: The judgment of Justice Carole Brown of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 13, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

Background

1Mr. Puzzolanti appeals from the summary judgment granted by the motion judge in which he was ordered to repay to the respondent the sum of $337,653.67. The claim arises out of a cheque that the appellant deposited to his bank account with the respondent that subsequently turned out to be forged.

2The core complaint by the appellant is that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant him an adjournment of the motion for summary judgment.

3On February 23, 2018, Glustein J. set a timetable for the hearing of the summary judgment motion. While the appellant did not participate in this event, his counsel was advised of the timetable, including the date fixed for the hearing of the summary judgment motion, that is, April 13, 2018. Subsequently, counsel for the respondent served the respondent's materials for the motion on the appellant and otherwise reminded counsel for the appellant of the motion date.

4The day before the motion was to be heard, counsel for the appellant advised counsel for the respondent that he had just been retained for the motion and requested an adjournment. Counsel for the appellant also advised that he could not attend in court the next day because of other commitments. Counsel for the respondent refused to consent to the adjournment.

5On April 13, 2018, the motion proceeded before the motion judge. Counsel for the appellant was not present. The motion judge was made aware of the appellant's request for an adjournment but determined that she would proceed with the motion for summary judgment, which was granted.

Analysis

6We do not see any error in the motion judge's conclusion to proceed with the summary judgment motion in these circumstances. The motion judge's decision is a matter within her discretion and will not be interfered with unless the judge has failed to take account of relevant factors and thus exercised her discretion unreasonably, such that the decision is contrary to the interests of justice: Boaden Catering Ltd. v. Real Food for Real Kids Inc., 2017 ONCA 248, at para. 17.

7There is no such error here. The appellant had ample notice of the date that was set for the hearing of the summary judgment motion. Waiting until the last minute to request an adjournment is contrary to the principles surrounding the adjudication of summary judgment motions, including their role as "a cheaper, faster alternative to a full trial": Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 34. It is also contrary to the directive contained in the Consolidated Practice Direction for Civil Actions, Applications, Motions and Procedural Matters in the Toronto Region of the Superior Court of Justice that provides that no adjournments of scheduled motions will be granted within 2 days of the scheduled hearing date"except in extenuating and exceptional circumstances."

8It was not contrary to the interests of justice to proceed with the summary judgment motion in these circumstances. That conclusion is strengthened by the fact that, on a plain reading of the statement of defence and counterclaim, no tenable defence was offered to the respondent's claim.

Disposition

9The appeal is dismissed.