Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: D & A v. Groothuis, 2009 ONCA 431

DATE: 20090525

DOCKET: C49877

Before: Weiler, Sharpe JJ.A. and Thorburn J. (Ad hoc)

BETWEEN

D & A

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

Amy Marie Grothuis and Mary Susan Truemner

Defendants/Respondents

Counsel:

J.C. Denis, for the plaintiff/appellant

D. Orth, for the defendants/respondents

Heard: May 22, 2009

On appeal from the order of Justice B.J. Manton of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 25, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We agree with the motion judge that Ms. Truemner is not a person “whose presence is necessary to enable the court to adjudicate effectively on the issue” within the meaning of rule 5.03. The claim asserted by the appellant against his former articling student does not in any way implicate the rights of Ms. Truemner so as to make her presence in this action necessary. At best, her evidence may be required on to the quantification of his claim which is not sufficient to justify joining her in this proceeding.

[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $4,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.