COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 ONCA 13

DATE: 20140110

DOCKET: M42652

(C56883)

Rosenberg, MacPherson and LaForme JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Robert Bilich

Moving Party

and

Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair, Mark Pugash, Reuben Stroble, Blake Shreve, Suzanne Pinto, Stephen Ruffino, Ian Sapsford, Candy Graham, Victoria Balice and Wendy Drummond

Respondents

Robert Bilich, appearing in person

Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick, for the respondents

Heard: January 6, 2014

On application for an order to review the order of Justice Russell Juriansz dated June 25, 2013.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The moving party applies to review the decision of Juriansz J.A. refusing to extend the time to perfect the appeal. The motion judge based his decision on there being no merit to the proposed appeal. We have reviewed his decision, the extensive reasons of Frank J. and the other material in the extensive record. We agree with the motion judge that there is no merit to the appeal and on that ground alone the motion to extend time to perfect was properly dismissed.

[2] There are other problems with his application. The moving party has provided a lengthy affidavit including many exhibits. In this affidavit, the moving party has set out his version of the chronology of events that led to his bringing the civil action and the treatment of the action in the Superior Court of Justice. But, despite this enormous amount of information and allegations, the moving party still has not provided any reasonable explanation for the delay. He says that he needs the audio recording of a proceeding before Khawly J. before he can perfect the appeal. However, he has a transcript of the hearing and the audio recording was not necessary for him to perfect his appeal. Further, as counsel for the responding party has pointed out, the moving party never provided any information as to when he would perfect the appeal.

[3] Finally, there is no basis for granting the other relief sought by the moving party, namely a full and complete forensic audit of the billing practices of the responding parties’ counsel and an injunction.

[4] Accordingly, the application for review is dismissed with costs fixed at $1,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

“M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”