Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Dunlop v. Glasser, 2014 ONCA 354

DATE: 20140502

DOCKET: C54499

Doherty, Cronk and Hourigan JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Derek Dunlop

Appellant

and

Vanessa Glasser and Sara Blake

Respondents

No one appearing for the appellant

Jim Smith, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: April 24, 2014

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Norman M. Karam of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 28, 2011.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant represents himself. He is not present in court.

[2] This appeal has been adjourned many times and has been peremptory to the appellant on three occasions.

[3] It is unnecessary to detail the lengthy history of this appeal. We will begin in February of this year. On February 12, 2014, the appellant indicated he was available to argue his appeal on April 24, 2014, today's date. On February 14^th^, the appellant was advised that the appeal had been listed for April 24, 2014.

[4] On April 23^rd^, that is yesterday, the appellant sent an email to the court asking at what time on April 25^th^ his appeal would be heard. He was immediately advised by email that the appeal was scheduled for April 24^th^ as indicated to him in the email of February 14^th^.

[5] The appellant sent an email to the court early on April 24^th^ indicating that he had been unable to access his email account for some time. He said:

I planned to be in attendance at the Court of Appeal for the 25^th^ of April. As a result I will be unable to attend tomorrow the 24^th^ of April.

[6] No explanation is offered for the appellant's inability to attend in person today. We are advised that he lives in Toronto. The appellant goes on to request yet a further adjournment of the appeal.

[7] Counsel for the respondents appears and opposes any further adjournment. Counsel also advised the court that he notified the appellant by email that he would oppose any further request for an adjournment.

[8] Having regard to the history of this appeal and the nature of the underlying proceeding, we are satisfied that any further adjournment of this appeal would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. We decline to grant any further adjournment.

[9] We have considered the merits of the appeal and have reviewed the material filed with the court. In our view, there is no merit to the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

[10] Costs to the respondents in the amount of $1,000, inclusive of relevant taxes and disbursements.

"Doherty J.A."

"E.A. Cronk J.A."

"C.W. Hourigan J.A."