Predie v. Barrie (City), 2007 ONCA 291

CITATION: Predie v. Barrie (City), 2007 ONCA 291

DATE: 20070419

DOCKET: C45545

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CRONK, ARMSTRONG and MacFARLAND JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

DANIEL GARY PREDIE

(Appellant/Respondent)

and

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BARRIE

(Respondent/Applicant)

AND BETWEEN:

DANIEL GARY PREDIE

(Appellant/Respondent)

and

THE ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL

(Respondent/Applicant)

Daniel Predie, in person

Jameson W. Clow, for The Corporation of the City of Barrie

John I. Barzo, for The Royal Victoria Hospital

Heard and Released Orally: April 17, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice D.S. Ferguson of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 2, 2006.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals from the judgment of the application judge declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and granting ancillary relief. The appellant argues that the application judge erred by declining to grant his request for an adjournment of the respondents’ applications, thereby compromising hearing fairness.

[2] The appellant seeks to explain his adjournment request on the basis that he did not have time to review the materials filed in support of the respondents’ applications because he was then involved in several other pending court proceedings, he wished to cross-examine the deponents of the respondents’ affidavits, and he wished to file materials in response to the respondents’ materials.

[3] In our view, the appeal must be dismissed.

[4] Having reviewed the pleadings and the orders and endorsements of the courts in the litigation between the parties, and the manner of the appellant’s conduct of that litigation as reflected in those documents, the application judge found as a fact that the appellant’s motivation for seeking the requested adjournment was delay. He also found that there was a serious risk that during the period of the adjournment, if granted, the appellant would proceed with his various proceedings in a manner that would continue to drive up the costs of the litigation, which costs appeared to be unrecoverable as against the appellant. These findings were supported by the record before the application judge.

[5] The application judge also noted that the numerous costs awards made against the appellant, including by this court, were outstanding. The appellant acknowledged on this appeal that these costs orders remain unsatisfied.

[6] Finally, the application judge held that the appellant had had ample time to read the respondents’ materials but claimed that he had not done so and, further, that he had refrained from filing the required notices of appearance in order to avoid the associated filing fees.

[7] In all these circumstances, we are satisfied that there is no basis upon which to interfere with the application judge’s discretionary decision to deny the appellant’s adjournment request. Nor is there any basis on which to interfere with his disposition of the respondents’ applications on the merits.

[8] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are entitled to their costs of this appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed, in the case of the respondent, The Corporation of the City of Barrie, in the total amount of $5,000, including disbursements and GST, and, in the case of the respondent, The Royal Victoria Hospital, in the total amount of $1,000, including disbursements and GST.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”